What Unearthed Arcana to you allow at your table?

[OverdrivePrime]

Some of the Unearthed Arcana seems to add really solid flavor and flexibility. Some seems like an almost necessary adjustment (revised ranger). Some seems setting specific, and some is hot garbage that couldn't have been play tested.

What do you recommend or allow at your table? Anything you ban outright? Why?

Here's the full list: D&D 5e Unearthed Arcana (https://www.learningdnd.com/resource/unearthed-arcana-list/)

[Spore]

We can bring everything up. But my DM senses tell me my DM will not learn Mystics nor Psionics just for a mere character concept.

[Sariel Vailo]

Anything so long as do 2 out of three of my prerequisites
1.argue your case for it.
2.write a backstory on why you are blank when their are no other.or what happened to the rest of blank.
3 let me see how you fair in a mock battle at max level aginst a tough foe for your class to see what weaknesses you have if any.

You dont get anything special for doing all three except a 100 percent gets to use this.ua for this game

[Theodoxus]

My current campaign is PhB only, as well as no feats or multiclassing, so none... However, that's for new to 5E gamers.

But, if I were to consider UA, I'd still not allow any of it. Even the "nearly ready for prime time" like revised ranger has broken bits. Level 1 is so front loaded, RRanger 1/Rogue 2 is pretty much mandatory for anyone who wants to have all options open for combat... I'd at the very least move the advantage to initiative further down, perhaps at level 5 to replace/augment extra attack. At least that puts it closer to the Barbarian ability.

A few of the archetypes aren't too bad, but all need more polish, in my opinion. FWIW, I'm not really a fan of much from SCAG. I love swashbuckler, but feel it's pretty OP. If rakish audacity replaced rather than added to melee options for sneak, that would have been better - though I'm sure it would have caused others to howl (as well as make it difficult to adjudicate).

[Maxilian]

The only thing i don't allow right now is Wizard subclass Lore Mastery (unless you accept to be a 6 INT Orc Wizard :smallbiggrin:).

[Waterdeep Merch]

I've banned every UA wizard archetype except for the war wizard. It's the only balanced one, I feel.

If there are more recent versions of any class/subclass in UA, I require that that version be used.

The entirety of the Light, Dark, Underdark UA is banned.

Outside of those, every other class, subclass, spell, and feat is legal in my games.

[Maxilian]

3 let me see how you fair in a mock battle at max level aginst a tough foe for your class to see what weaknesses you have if any.


How would you know with only 1 mock battle? and if you test them at max lvl you won't even know how good or bad they are in play (is like comparing a Wizard power only by looking at it at lvl 20, it doesn't work IMHO). -Mystic is a good example of that-

[SharkForce]

basically nothing as written.

potentially anything after review and modifications (which may result in something that doesn't look even remotely like the original version mechanically before i allow it in), with the understanding that if i missed any abuses it may change again later, though i'll try to work a lot harder to make something that works for the player at that point.

[toapat]

Lore Wizard and Redemption paladin: these subclasses are massively overpowered

Almondcat's Naga race, as a fighter becomes basically a god with it

Diplomat and Historian feats from Feats for Skills, as they are ludicrously broken.

Mystic, mostly since im not motivating myself to read it.

Pact of the Blade Smite Invocations from the Lore Wizard UA, as they have too much efficiency

Treachery paladin because its literally just Oathbreaker

[Naanomi]

Only Revised Ranger as of now, though I could see situations where I'd consider something else on a case-by-case basis

[Sariel Vailo]

How would you know with only 1 mock battle? and if you test them at max lvl you won't even know how good or bad they are in play (is like comparing a Wizard power only by looking at it at lvl 20, it doesn't work IMHO). -Mystic is a good example of that-

Spellcater fight tarrasque lore wizard meet spell resistance. I test various ideas characters enemies see what works what doesnt.potential dam per dice rolls,criticals,etc etc.i mull it over after seeing character concepts. warforged ek rust monster swarm. Even making monsters whose hp is twice the number of damage a wizards highest spell slots/and damage spell is.barbarian with gwm highest crit dam.i factor all those into mini bosses.
Actual bbeg has more hitpoints feats resistances and legendary actions

[Maxilian]

Lore Wizard and Redemption paladin: these subclasses are massively overpowered

Almondcat's Naga race, as a fighter becomes basically a god with it

Diplomat and Historian feats from Feats for Skills, as they are ludicrously broken.

Mystic, mostly since im not motivating myself to read it.

Pact of the Blade Smite Invocations from the Lore Wizard UA, as they have too much efficiency

Treachery paladin because its literally just Oathbreaker

I agree with this, excluding the Pact of the Blade (Hex blade) and Mystic, as i don't think they are as troublesome as most people say (Mystic can be created in many different ways, but they still have to chosse), Hexblade is better than just going Pact of the Blade (but its not way better than any other martial class)

[toapat]

I agree with this, excluding the Pact of the Blade (Hex blade) and Mystic, as i don't think they are as troublesome as most people say (Mystic can be created in many different ways, but they still have to chosse), Hexblade is better than just going Pact of the Blade (but its not way better than any other martial class)

not hexblade, the Invocations like Moonbow.

Mystic as i said was entirely just "Eh, no im not reading this"

[Naanomi]

Lots of UA material makes for incredibly strong multiclassing (mystic definetly does); if someone asked me to play a UA class, part of my agreement would definetly be no multiclassing

[Maxilian]

Lots of UA material makes for incredibly strong multiclassing (mystic definetly does); if someone asked me to play a UA class, part of my agreement would definetly be no multiclassing

I agree, but i wouldn't out right ban MC, but i would need to know what's the plan and what is the MC (not all MC are for the sake of power, others are just for the sake of concepts. -As long as it does not break the game)

[Maxilian]

not hexblade, the Invocations like Moonbow.

Mystic as i said was entirely just "Eh, no im not reading this"

I'm not sure how good Moonbow is after certain couple of lvls (i mean... i could most likely do more with EB -not like you have that many spell slots either way-)

[JackPhoenix]

Nothing by default. I approach UA as any other homebrew: tell me what you want, I decide on case-by-case basis. However, sometimes I myself recommend my players certain UA's if I think it could fit their character: currently, there's a hexblade warlock (propably second most effective character at the moment, behind oathbreaker paladin (with great rolls) and about comparable to druid/cleric (who's better at CC and gets better rolls than the hexblade. The wizard doesn't count, because he spends half the combat hiding somewhere and hoping nobody notices him and his 2 spells with actual combat use (Shield and Firebolt). The druid/cleric uses homebrew subclasses (gatekeeper druid and madness domain) and I've recommended (and allowed) her to exchange Shillelagh for Primal Savagery from UA, as it fits her character (a shifter, also from UA) better.

[toapat]

I'm not sure how good Moonbow is after certain couple of lvls (i mean... i could most likely do more with EB -not like you have that many spell slots either way-)

the Warlock + Wizard UA smite invocations are so powerful that even with only 1 short rest paladin can never surpass the warlock for damage from smiting

[Maxilian]

the Warlock + Wizard UA smite invocations are so powerful that even with only 1 short rest paladin can never surpass the warlock for damage from smiting

But you can only use it twice, (maybe 3 times depending your lvl or 4 times if you are in a really high lvl) unless you MC.

[Potato_Priest]

Please note that I disallow multiclassing unless the lore/RP heavily supports it.

Cleric, barbarian, and Druid are all solid yesses.

Warlock on a case by case basis.

No artificier. It's not that it's super broken or anything, just that it's terribly designed.

No sharpshooter or samurai ( I did once allow sharpshooter, but I shan't do so again, and if you want to be a samurai just suck it up and play a refluffed barbarian)

If a player was dead set on playing a knight or arcane archer, I'd allow it.

I hate all of the sorcerer stuff except the 2 most recent favored soul versions.

Paladin oaths are allowed.

I allow UA revised ranger.

Skill and race feats are A-OK

Anything that came out before the revised ranger is not even up for consideration.

I wouldn't allow the plane shift races, but I might consider the domains.

[toapat]

But you can only use it twice, (maybe 3 times depending your lvl or 4 times if you are in a really high lvl) unless you MC.

the problem with the original locksmite was it scaled so well that an equal level paladin gets TOTAL smiting per day equal to Total Warlock Smiting per rest.


I wouldn't allow the plane shift races, but I might consider the domains.

the only race thats completely broken in plane shift is the Naga, and theres also the Zendikar vampire which is pretty stronk but not even as strong as say, Drow. There is Hawk Headed Aven as well which make amazing Sun Souls/Rangers and little else

[BlizzardMayne]

Everything with a grain of salt. If we're a few sessions in and it's become apparent that things need to be changed, we make adjustments. If the purpose of UA is to put playtest material out into the wild, what good does it do if it never gets tested?

[sightlessrealit]

Everything apart from Variant Rules.

[Beelzebubba]

Our table is open on a 'let's all try it, but agree to tweak or replace it if necessary' basis.

It's meant for playtesting. If we don't playtest it, then we can't help WOTC improve it.

A bunch of our characters are about to gain ASIs & Feats, so it's about time to try. I know I want to use one of the Skill feats - the ability to get an even ability score, Expertise on a skill and a small other thing is pretty enticing.

[Theodoxus]

I wouldn't allow the plane shift races, but I might consider the domains.

My friend and sometime DM said the Kor's Lucky trait should remain Halfling only... I just laughed. There's really nothing overly powerful with any of the Plane Shift races, but then, they aren't technically UA either.

[Sigreid]

Currently just the revised ranger, and that required the group as a whole to take a look at it and agree it was good.

[alchahest]

So far, everything is good to go, if you pass it by the DM first. But our table isn't full of gotchas and game-ruiners.

[Potato_Priest]

the only race thats completely broken in plane shift is the Naga, and theres also the Zendikar vampire which is pretty stronk but not even as strong as say, Drow. There is Hawk Headed Aven as well which make amazing Sun Souls/Rangers and little else

Hawk aven is pretty darned good compared to phb races. Not only is it one of the plus 4 uber-races, but it also gets at-will flight. Definitely a more than viable option for cleric and Druid as well as the 2 you mentioned.

[toapat]

Hawk aven is pretty darned good compared to phb races. Not only is it one of the plus 4 uber-races, but it also gets at-will flight. Definitely a more than viable option for cleric and Druid as well as the 2 you mentioned.

its a solid race since its one of the ONLY +wisdom races at all, and the flyspeed is OK, but they pay for that in mechanics.

[SharkForce]

My friend and sometime DM said the Kor's Lucky trait should remain Halfling only... I just laughed. There's really nothing overly powerful with any of the Plane Shift races, but then, they aren't technically UA either.

no, the naga is pretty ridiculous. constrict is completely busted OP.

here's how a normal grappler works:

- keep a hand open for grapple attempts.
- sacrifice an attack to shove the target prone.
- sacrifice an additional attack to grapple the target, removing their ability to stand up because they have no movement.
- only attacks within 5 feet against the target get advantage, plus the target gets disadvantage to attack others.
- you are limited in the size of creature you can grapple.
- you need to invest in athletics to have a good chance of success.
- cannot be used on opportunity and reaction attacks (it's usable only with an attack action on your turn)

now let's consider the naga:

- no hands needed, you can use a glaive or greatsword (plus use feats to support your damage) as much as you desire.
- the attack does damage on the first hit, grapples the target, and restrains them all in one attack.
- additional attacks can be used as normal, the target already has speed of 0 and it wouldn't help anyways.
- all attacks get advantage regardless of range, target still has disadvantage to hit anyone, plus disadvantage on dex saves.
- there is no limit to the size of what you can grapple.
- you don't need to invest in anything other than attack bonus for it to be valuable (if the target escapes, you can grapple them again on another regular attack, but it cost them their action even if the DC is low).
- can be used on opportunity and reaction attacks (it's just an unarmed strike).

furthermore, it counts as an unarmed strike, so it also works with monk to boost damage, make the attack count as a magical weapon, and you can flurry as well as stun the target (and the attack roll can be made with dex instead of strength). you don't need to spend expertise on it either.

so, as compared to a normal grappler, you're dealing substantially more damage, investing less, getting greater benefits, able to use your trick against more targets, and able to use your trick in more situations including many situations where you want it to work the most (like when someone is trying to run away on their turn, or get past your front line to reach the squishies, or when you're trying to keep an earth elemental from running back through the ground so you can't full attack it, etc).

that is *way* too much to put into a race.

now, take away constrict, and naga gets perfectly reasonable (well, actually, super easy access to free poison that you can presumably harvest and use on your other weapons is still pretty danged good too, but at least it isn't exclusively available to almondcat nagas). you shouldn't become better than the previous best grappler in the game just from picking a race, that's crazy.

[Biggstick]

I don't allow any Player Class archetype UA.

The Revised Ranger is as someone else said, too front-loaded for my taste, so also not allowed.

Players can utilize the skill proficiecny and racial UA feats (barring Dragonborn flight).

I'm also a big fan of the downtime UA. I really hope it gets implemented in the upcoming book.

[Blacky the Blackball]

It's pretty much a moot point for me, because none of my players even know that Unearthed Arcana exists, so no-one is going to ask to play any of it. I'm the only one in the group that talks about RPG stuff online - the others just turn up once a week to play and then get on with their lives.

Having said that, I suppose my default stance would be "whichever bits get printed in Xanathar's Guide". Since we don't know which bits they're going to be yet (and how different they'll be from the versions we've seen) then that basically means no UA stuff until the book comes out.

I suppose if one of the players did come to me and ask me about it then we'd discuss it and could probably work something out. But I very much doubt that's going to happen. We've had Volo's Guide and the Elemental Evil Player's Companion for a while now, and other than picking a few spells out of the EE booklet no-one has expressed any interest in playing any of the races from those books; let alone something from a web download.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Having read all of them, I allow everything, though i don't USE it all. Most of my players aren't heavy optimizers, to the point where i beg them to not build 12 int Orc wizards, and the others for some reason police themselves even when I point out strong options they could take they simply say 'it feels too OP'. However I'm highly against restricting player options for any reason, and I have the time and patience to build encounters to handle anything and everything. I don't find any of the UA options overwhelming, and I encourage people to try them out before our right banning anything.

On the other hand I could see where some people could find some options to be 'too strong' but to me its just a challenge. When it comes to variant rules though I tend to avoid them but if one of my players would want, I'd have the entire group review the rules and we would do a quick session to see if everyone enjoyed it or preferred it over the current rules.

I'm not surprised that it appears my views are the minority though.

[FabulousFizban]

i play pretty fast and loose, so the players can use basically anything they want: UA, 3rd party, I don't care. They have more fun realizing a concept, and it doesn't affect gameplay or RP too much, just be flexible - its their game, DM is just the editor.

[Afrodactyl]

My group of gamers and I are very much of the 'use whatever you like as long as the DM is okay with it' persuasion. We also have the rules that it must be the most up to date version of that UA, and if something in that class is consistently really underpowered or overpowered, then it will be tweaked for the sake of balance

[Sariel Vailo]

i play pretty fast and loose, so the players can use basically anything they want: UA, 3rd party, I don't care. They have more fun realizing a concept, and it doesn't affect gameplay or RP too much, just be flexible - its their game, DM is just the editor.

I didnt think id agree with a pony but finally someone gets it. They are the key charcters in the story if they want to be cool or difrent let them

[DracoKnight]

Having read all of them, I allow everything, though i don't USE it all. Most of my players aren't heavy optimizers, to the point where i beg them to not build 12 int Orc wizards, and the others for some reason police themselves even when I point out strong options they could take they simply say 'it feels too OP'. However I'm highly against restricting player options for any reason, and I have the time and patience to build encounters to handle anything and everything. I don't find any of the UA options overwhelming, and I encourage people to try them out before our right banning anything.

On the other hand I could see where some people could find some options to be 'too strong' but to me its just a challenge. When it comes to variant rules though I tend to avoid them but if one of my players would want, I'd have the entire group review the rules and we would do a quick session to see if everyone enjoyed it or preferred it over the current rules.

I'm not surprised that it appears my views are the minority though.

I came in here to write out a long response and then I saw your post, and you said everything I wanted to, but more succinctly.

[Theodoxus]

I think, my biggest problem with allowing all UA, is it's turning 5e into 3.P. Instead of official splatbooks that add a new class or three with new mechanics, we have unofficial (thankfully) UA playtesty stuff. But it does require a DM to have to deal with bloat, creep and unintentional multiclass shenanigans when also dealing with players who aren't opting for said material.

With a home group of friends who play together for years, who devote an entire session before a new campaign on exploring party cohesion and what they want to get from it - that's one thing. Then the DM knows exactly which classes he'll be dealing with, what eventual MC he'll need to bone up on and what pitfalls to look out for.

I've done that; I've run Monte Hall style games with my home group, precisely because I knew exactly what I was getting and didn't have to worry about 14 different potential combinations.

But lately, all my experience has been AL-esque Meetup groups, with new players coming out of the woodwork every week. If I were to allow UA in these types of groups, I'd be memorizing every possible combination to make sure they aren't trying to pull one over on me - remember, these are people I've never met - have no idea if they're honest, dishonest, intelligent, unwise, trolls or bullies... so I'd have to be 150% on my game to nix any problems - purposeful, accidental or otherwise.

It's a headache I don't need.

Outside of that though, I'm in total agreement regarding their use.

[mephnick]

I'll allow anything under the caveats that we switch it up if we don't like the balance and no multiclassing. So far the only UA that's been used has been a Hexblade and a Revised Ranger which have been fine. Some of the Hexblade smites are maybe a bit strong, but the warlock sacrifices a lot of utility to use a rare spell slot on a smite so whatever.

That said, while my group has all been playing for years, none of them would even know UA existed if I didn't post them on our facebook group, so abuse isn't much of a concern.

[OverdrivePrime]

I'll allow anything under the caveats that we switch it up if we don't like the balance and no multiclassing. So far the only UA that's been used has been a Hexblade and a Revised Ranger which have been fine. Some of the Hexblade smites are maybe a bit strong, but the warlock sacrifices a lot of utility to use a rare spell slot on a smite so whatever.

That said, while my group has all been playing for years, none of them would even know UA existed if I didn't post them on our facebook group, so abuse isn't much of a concern.

That's kind of where I'm at for my game. We're moving my campaign into 5th edition after years in 3.P, and I'm just doing my best to make sure that their (now 12th-13th level) characters still feel like their characters. My players aren't really optimizers but have the occasional attraction to cheese (we live in Milwaukee, so that's unavoidable).

Right now, I feel like there's enough in Core+UA where I can comfortably rebuild everyone's character, with the Archivist giving me the most trouble. That's been resolved thanks to the help of several of you in this archivist thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?529815-Converting-from-3-5-need-Archivist-advice!)

[alchahest]

Our DM makes a point of reading every UA when it comes out, and has a lot of theory discussions with the players, simply because we like the idea of new or novel game mechanics. In this way, his interest means he's never surprised. With that said, whenever someone says "I'd like to make a ____", or "I'd like to use the _____ Feat" he'll check it out and give a reasoned response, occasionally with tweaks to better serve the table.

For example, we've adjusted the revised ranger's initiative bonus from advantage, to adding wismod in a 10' aura to allied initative. After trying the other way in game, and then trying this way, it's been working really well for us.

[PloxBox]

Our DM makes a point of reading every UA when it comes out, and has a lot of theory discussions with the players, simply because we like the idea of new or novel game mechanics. In this way, his interest means he's never surprised. With that said, whenever someone says "I'd like to make a ____", or "I'd like to use the _____ Feat" he'll check it out and give a reasoned response, occasionally with tweaks to better serve the table.

For example, we've adjusted the revised ranger's initiative bonus from advantage, to adding wismod in a 10' aura to allied initative. After trying the other way in game, and then trying this way, it's been working really well for us.

I actually really like that last one. Going to "borrow" that for a boon of sorts for one of my players.

[Beelzebubba]

For example, we've adjusted the revised ranger's initiative bonus from advantage, to adding wismod in a 10' aura to allied initative. After trying the other way in game, and then trying this way, it's been working really well for us.

I hope you passed that on to Wizards. That's fantastic.

[jaappleton]

All but the Lore Wizard.

[Demonslayer666]

I'd probably allow anything as long as they discuss it with me before hand. I haven't seen anything that looks terrible and I really like the feats.

[Naanomi]

I will note that if I ever got to a point in our group where players had really 'done it all'; that we had seen every (or nearly every) published Subclass in play for a reasonable amount of time, that I would be more amiable to 'opening up' UA options... but despite playing and DMing in some capacity since 5e's release I still don't feel that way; and the players havnt been expressing dissatisfaction or boredom with the existing 'official' material

[Mortis_Elrod]

I came in here to write out a long response and then I saw your post, and you said everything I wanted to, but more succinctly.

Being a big fan of MFoV (i welcome it at my table, with little to no adjustments) this puts a smile on my face.

I think most of the banning comes from either not understanding the mechanics, the fear of 5e becoming too much like 3.x with lots of splat books, or not wanting to test something out extensively to see if it is too much to handle.
Though i don't begrudge anyone who has these problems, this is what I'm seeing in the thread. I understand completely that one can't read everything that comes out and also test it, and not wanting 5e to become oversaturated with content to the extent of previous editions.

[Puh Laden]

Even though I've glanced through every ua, there's so much that I tell my players that if they want a specific ua, pass it by me. Lore wizard is banned up-front though. Also I don't allow multi-classsing into or out of ua classes/subclasses, not even revised ranger.

[MrStabby]

I allow the revised ranger. It is a solid class and basically what happens if you take the ranger and playtest it some more. It has some powerful low level abilities at 1 and 3 but the low level play only lasts a few sessions and I am not convinced they are better than other low level martial bonuses like cunning action, action surge, divine smite...

The others I don't allow in their core form. Instead if a player wants to bring something off-book we homebrew it together as a table. UA can be inspiration for abilities but never used outright.

[Sariel Vailo]

Im gona take some hate my dm let me play a lore wizard so i intentionaly made her con small.

[DarkKnightJin]

Not a DM, but I make a point of running any UA I would like to use for a character concept by the DM in question before going forward with it. If they say 'no', I'll either find something in the official content to make the concept work, or I shelf the character for another time.

I love making characters and concepts, and I'll simply refluff some things to make it fit my character without new mechanics.

For example, the 'Werebear' character/race I'd love for a Rogue? I just reskin Volo's Goliath into looking like a bigass humanoid bear with the same mechanics as the stock Goliath.
No headache for me or the GM with curses, possibly OP stat blocks, and I get my wonderful large bear of a character.

[jas61292]

I don't have and hard and fast rules on it, but generally my sentiment is that everything UA is normally not allowed,
though my players can always ask if they want to try something. That said, asking requires justification, and they know that I'm more likely to say no than yes to most UA stuff.

Revised ranger is the only thing that has gotten significant use at my table, though do currently have one player using the horizon walker archetype as well.

[alchahest]

I think the biggest takeaway is session 0 stuff - be open and up front about what you're interested in doing, what you'd like to try, and the DM should be equally as open about what they want to allow in the game. that isn't to say DMs who are PHB only are wrong, nor is it to say that DMs who encourage UA and even multiple third party sources are wrong - whatever works for your group is what works for your group.

[TheCrowing1432]

Everything. The idea of Unearthed Arcana is to test things, if UA is banned, how can they be tested?

If something is too powerful or too weak, we try our best to patch it.

[DracoKnight]

Everything. The idea of Unearthed Arcana is to test things, if UA is banned, how can they be tested?

If something is too powerful or too weak, we try our best to patch it.

Again, this exactly. People flipped out at the Undying Light patron, but I feel like very few people tested it. But because people DID test it, we got a revised version in the Celestial Patron (which arguably got hit too hard with the nerf bat).


Being a big fan of MFoV (i welcome it at my table, with little to no adjustments) this puts a smile on my face.

It's always nice to meet a fan! I'm glad you like what we do, and we put a significant amount of work into making sure that you don't have to adjust anything to bring our content to your table.


I think most of the banning comes from either not understanding the mechanics, the fear of 5e becoming too much like 3.x with lots of splat books, or not wanting to test something out extensively to see if it is too much to handle.

This is exactly what I've seen. My DM used to flat-out ban UA, and then I sat him down and walked him through each one (I really wanted to play an Undying Light Warlock) explaining how each ability interacts with core and with multiclassing, etc. I did that for every race, ever subclass...and it got through to him. The kicker was that after I laid everything out, I pointed out: "This stuff is never going to get better unless people test it," like people have been saying here on the forum.


Though i don't begrudge anyone who has these problems, this is what I'm seeing in the thread. I understand completely that one can't read everything that comes out and also test it, and not wanting 5e to become oversaturated with content to the extent of previous editions.

True, not everyone has the time to playtest it, or the players who are interested in trying out that specific character to playtest it. My group is wayyyyyy outside the norm, with 15 regular players in 4-5 different campaigns. We range from pure RP, to pure Munchkin, to a balance between the two. We have a lot of different viewpoints to playtest something from...and lots of time on our hands right now.

[JeffreyGator]

Revised ranger is allowed at both my tables.

As the GM, there is the possibility that I will look at some UA stuff in making villians at the first table but my players have not been too interested yet.

My second more permissive table definitely is testing the skill and racial feats and starter spells.

We also have a hexblade.

Other stuff could come up but hasn't yet.

[Naanomi]

To all the people who allow it to play test it: how are you getting your feedback on the playtesting back to Wizards? They only leave the official feedback questionairre open for a week or two...

[Nod_Hero]

All 3 of the feat documents, Downtime and Starter Spells are pretty much 'auto-allow' for most of the groups I'm in.

Minotaurs & Mariner (waterborne), Close Quarters Shooter/Tunnel Fighter fighting styles & Shadow sorcerer (underdark), Revised Ranger, Hexblade (wnw), Way of Kensei (revised), Favored Soul-Sea Sorcery-Stone Sorcery (origins) do see or have seen play at our tables.

Our DM really roots for us to use whatever we like as long as the concept is cool and not for min-maxing purposes.

In our high level campaign (15-16) I'm currently playing a Minotaur Avenger Paladin 6/Favored Soul Sorcerer 9 with Tunnel Fighter fighting style, so yeah, we throw everything against the wall.

[Sariel Vailo]

Their is some mfov i enjoy others i was wondering why.but yeah it seems like mfov tries to balance their works aint that right. Draco

[furby076]

We can bring everything up. But my DM senses tell me my DM will not learn Mystics nor Psionics just for a mere character concept.

Out of curiosity, why not mystic

[TheUser]

Out of curiosity, why not mystic

No need for verbal or somatic components; it's like magic but with subtle spell up all the time and with spell points constantly in effect. The breadth of material a DM must familiarize themselves with is also immense along with being pretty cheesy. The quirks/derangements is the only cool part since it adds a cool RP piece for the class.

To digress I wouldn't use them in their current form since there are a few key features they have that I do not like (psychic magic missiles for instance; no attack roll, no save, no verbal or somatic components...just deal psychic damage; not fun).

I opt out of Loremaster and Sharpshooter (like most).

but one UA I don't see being banned which I would've thought people see the OP potential is FAVORED SOUL holy crap what an OP UA.

Guidance + Double Proficiency on Deception/Persuasion is obscene...literally #1 social god with subtle spell. I would Actor Feat with Half-Elf and make the most insane trickster villain possible....

Twinned Healing? Yep.
Twinned Guiding Bolt? 8d6 damage for a level 1 slot + 1 sorcery point....
Heightened Bestow Curse? (Use a 5th level slot and it no longer requires concentration...)
Heightened Scrying...
Heightened/Subtle Geas?
Heightened Harm?

I strongly suspect it will make its way into Xanathar's Despite this.

[alchahest]

No need for verbal or somatic components; it's like magic but with subtle spell up all the time and with spell points constantly in effect. The breadth of material a DM must familiarize themselves with is also immense along with being pretty cheesy. The quirks/derangements is the only cool part since it adds a cool RP piece for the class.

To digress I wouldn't use them in their current form since there are a few key features they have that I do not like (psychic magic missiles for instance; no attack roll, no save, no verbal or somatic components...just deal psychic damage; not fun).

I opt out of Loremaster and Sharpshooter (like most).

but one UA I don't see being banned which I would've thought people see the OP potential is FAVORED SOUL holy crap what an OP UA.

Guidance + Double Proficiency on Deception/Persuasion is obscene...literally #1 social god with subtle spell. I would Actor Feat with Half-Elf and make the most insane trickster villain possible....

Twinned Healing? Yep.
Twinned Guiding Bolt? 8d6 damage for a level 1 slot + 1 sorcery point....
Heightened Bestow Curse? (Use a 5th level slot and it no longer requires concentration...)
Heightened Scrying...
Heightened/Subtle Geas?
Heightened Harm?

I strongly suspect it will make its way into Xanathar's Despite this.


How are you getting double proficiency on deception/persuasion? are you including rogue/bard levels or skill feats from the skill feats UA?

Also remember twinned spells have to be at different targets.

Other than that, you're using the sorceror chassis for cleric spells which means you're getting more versatility with metmagic and spell point reources, but you're losing out on armor, and domain features including your channel divinity options), divine intervention, hit points, spells known, and ritual casting.

[excommunicated]

Thank you OverDrivePrime, this is exactly the sort of feedback I was trying to get with my post about "The MMA King of the Cage contest of Character Optimization."

When asked to describe the main difference between 5e and earlier versions, I've often said that in 5e, the difference between a well optimized character and an average character is that it is at most 1.5 times as good at what it tries to do. In earlier versions optimized characters could easily be twice as effective, three times as effective or more. Would people who have allowed most of these UA options to be used, reckon that the options allow characters that are two, three or more times more effective at what they aim to do (DPR, Healing per round, untouchable AC etc) than optimized characters using standard rules?

[TheUser]

How are you getting double proficiency on deception/persuasion? are you including rogue/bard levels or skill feats from the skill feats UA?


https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/26_UASorcererUA020617s.pdf


Blessed Countenance
At 6th level, your divine essence causes you to
undergo a minor physical transformation. Your
appearance takes on an otherworldly version of
one of the following qualities (your choice):
beautiful, youthful, kind, or imposing.
Whatever your choice, if your proficiency
bonus applies to a Charisma check, double that
bonus.



Also remember twinned spells have to be at different targets.

I don't see what your point is? You still put out double the healing for a nominal cost and at twice the rate in combat. Also Heightened Spell with a handful of different Cleric spells is crazy strong.


Other than that, you're using the sorceror chassis for cleric spells which means you're getting more versatility with metmagic and spell point reources, but you're losing out on armor, and domain features including your channel divinity options), divine intervention, hit points, spells known, and ritual casting.

No. You're using the Sorcerer chassis for sorcerer AND cleric spells. You also have access to the sorcerer spell list in addition to cleric's. So you get all the perks of being a sorcerer but you also get access to cleric spells. You don't even use wisdom as a casting stat; they count as sorcerer spells and hence function off of your Charisma. It's wayyyy too strong.

[Steampunkette]

All of it.

I tinker with things that are OP and things that are UP and let my players test it out.

So far, the Gunslinger Alchemist has proven to be the most broken UA piece. Though the Mystic, even with some modification, has some problems yet.

[Potato_Priest]

@TheUser I believe that there's been a more recent favored soul without the double expertise.

[alchahest]

https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/26_UASorcererUA020617s.pdf


Blessed Countenance
At 6th level, your divine essence causes you to
undergo a minor physical transformation. Your
appearance takes on an otherworldly version of
one of the following qualities (your choice):
beautiful, youthful, kind, or imposing.
Whatever your choice, if your proficiency
bonus applies to a Charisma check, double that
bonus.




I don't see what your point is? You still put out double the healing for a nominal cost and at twice the rate in combat. Also Heightened Spell with a handful of different Cleric spells is crazy strong.



No. You're using the Sorcerer chassis for sorcerer AND cleric spells. You also have access to the sorcerer spell list in addition to cleric's. So you get all the perks of being a sorcerer but you also get access to cleric spells. You don't even use wisdom as a casting stat; they count as sorcerer spells and hence function off of your Charisma. It's wayyyy too strong.

That ability no longer exists:
http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UA-RevisedSubclasses.pdf

there's also no longer bonus HP for the subclass either.
As for healing, any turn you're using resources healing is a turn you're not using resources for other things, like killing the enemies who are making that healing required.

And yeah, you're using the chassis for both types of spells, but unlike draconic sorcs, you aren't adding charisma to damage at any point, regardless of the element. You aren't gaining armor proficiency, or a higher base armor, or movement options, like some of the other sorcs. You also, yes, can cast sorc and cleric spells, but unlike cleric, can only know 15 spells total. A Cleric can choose from their entire list every day when preparing spells.
It's potent, but not nearly "Waaaay overpowered".

[Nod_Hero]

@TheUser I believe that there's been a more recent favored soul without the double expertise.

Aye it's in the Revised document.
http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UA-RevisedSubclasses.pdf

[TheUser]

@TheUser I believe that there's been a more recent favored soul without the double expertise.

I just found it:
https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UA-RevisedSubclasses.pdf

Empower but for healing....

So now you can twin + empower your heals (yay!)

and still get heighten for the other aforementioned cleric spells...

[Mortis_Elrod]

I just found it:
https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UA-RevisedSubclasses.pdf

Empower but for healing....

So now you can twin + empower your heals (yay!)

and still get heighten for the other aforementioned cleric spells...

Ok so a number of things.

1. Healing is never really overpowered unless you can do so without spending resources and even then it's still just very good early levels to amazing and might be overpowered later levels, depending on if it scales.

2. It's not as if you get every cleric spell for free along with the sorcerer ones , it's a trade off. You still don't prepare spells, so you have to go through two lists and pick the ones you want forever.(or until you level again and exchange 1 for 1). You make it seem like it's more flexible than it is. No free spells , just more spell options.

3. You should probably play test the newer version before you go on about it. I doubt you did since you were quoting the previous version

[alchahest]

and, empower for healing works at 1 SP per die reroll. so I guess if you want to spend all of your SP on a double cast of cure, go for it, but I'm not sure how you're going to do that and all of the other things you use SP for

[Submortimer]

Considering the amount of homebrew I and my group use at the table, nothing in UA has really been off limits. We've adjusted things as we saw fit, outright removed things when needed, and patched everything up with DM putty to make a nice, solid, working thing in the end.

I think it works out well.

Then again, I don't think I've run a "standard" game of D&D in a LONG time.

[Hooligan]

Everything except loremaster wizard, deep gnomes, and revenants . First 2 as they seem incredibly unbalanced, the 3rd as it creates a ton of rp issues.

Perhaps this is part DM hubris and perhaps part because I've not read all of ua (most but not all), but I feel like I can tailor my campaign to provide a challenge for any other type of character.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Everything except loremaster wizard, deep gnomes, and revenants . First 2 as they seem incredibly unbalanced, the 3rd as it creates a ton of rp issues.

Perhaps this is part DM hubris and perhaps part because I've not read all of ua (most but not all), but I feel like I can tailor my campaign to provide a challenge for any other type of character.

Lorenaster wizard and revenants I can understand, but Deep gnomes are official and they don't seem so unbalanced. Elaborate?

[TheUser]

Ok so a number of things.

1. Healing is never really overpowered unless you can do so without spending resources and even then it's still just very good early levels to amazing and might be overpowered later levels, depending on if it scales.

2. It's not as if you get every cleric spell for free along with the sorcerer ones , it's a trade off. You still don't prepare spells, so you have to go through two lists and pick the ones you want forever.(or until you level again and exchange 1 for 1). You make it seem like it's more flexible than it is. No free spells , just more spell options.

3. You should probably play test the newer version before you go on about it. I doubt you did since you were quoting the previous version

1. Healing is for getting up downed allies most of the time; twinning that lets you spend your 1 turn to get up 2 people and add 2 turns for your side of the fight with your one.

2. You're not listening. For starters you get cure wounds for free which is a 50% increase in spells known at level 1. Twinning Guiding Bolt is better than twinning any other sorcerer spell early game. The point is that metamagic was balanced around a very specific set of spells and that without multi-classing restrictions to clamp down on it throws off the balance greatly. Adding cleric spells into the mix opens up the potential for horrendous levels of abuse. If someone so much as listens to you for 1 minute you can GEAS them with subtle spell or heighten it after tying them up. Then use sorcery points and slot burning to synthesize more level 5 slots and get a total of 4 heightened Geas off in one adventuring day (or 5 subtle), so a normal cleric gets one normal geas and you get 4 with the one and only save at disadvantage to make yourself 4 new followers to join you on your quest. Meaning your DM will either a) never put strong creature against you that you can take prisoner or b) will never have enemies with any language skills, because Tongues is a thing.

3. I definitely have tried playing it (the one with double proficiency on charisma) and it's perfectly fine levels 1-5 (even if subtle guidance is horrendously OP) and becomes out of control by level 11.


and, empower for healing works at 1 SP per die reroll. so I guess if you want to spend all of your SP on a double cast of cure, go for it, but I'm not sure how you're going to do that and all of the other things you use SP for

It's 1 SP to re-roll any number of dice once.
Scales up even better than the metamagic, and it's not limited for use with other metamagics (crazy).

Don't even get me started on multi-classing potential with 1 level of life-cleric....