DMs that allow UA material: What UA won't you allow? Why?

[Luccan]

I'm considering a small setting based only on free material (SRD, EE Player's Companion, maybe some of the free MTG stuff, and of course UA and other sources). I know a lot of UA is controversial, most of what I'm looking for here is people's logic in banning particular UA. For instance, I probably won't allow the Scribe or the older Wizard school that was similar to it, as both are incredibly versatile on top of an already extremely versatile class. I don't want to tip it too much in the wizard's direction. OTOH, I won't be including any psionic material or any of the UA artificers either as they don't match the tone I want. I'm sure there are a lot of diverse opinions and I'm eager to hear them.

[Lunali]

The ones that come to mind immediately are tunnel fighter and close quarters shooter, not because they are too strong on their own, but because they inevitably get paired with polearm master and sharpshooter respectively. However, since feats aren't in the SRD, I think I would let them pass. In fact, the general limitation of sticking to the free material makes a lot of the material considerably more balanced, so I would probably allow almost anything unless I foresaw specific problems.

[Dork_Forge]

My general rule is that I don't allow anything that has seen publication down the line, you must use the refined published version, everything else is case by case. If someone then comes to me with a UA I will look through it and judge it's balance, if I deem it too much I say no, if it's a bit powerful (as UA is intended to be) but certainly not broken and I know it will increase the player's enjoyment then I allow it.

A good example of UA I not only allow but specifically call out is the Raven Queen patron for the Warlock, it was such a fun idea with fun mechanics, yet it got dumped by the wayside and we got saddled with the burden of the Hexblade.

If you're going for free material you might also want to consider the Blood Hunter and Gunslinger, if they fit your tone, they're free to access.

[Luccan]

My general rule is that I don't allow anything that has seen publication down the line, you must use the refined published version, everything else is case by case. If someone then comes to me with a UA I will look through it and judge it's balance, if I deem it too much I say no, if it's a bit powerful (as UA is intended to be) but certainly not broken and I know it will increase the player's enjoyment then I allow it.

A good example of UA I not only allow but specifically call out is the Raven Queen patron for the Warlock, it was such a fun idea with fun mechanics, yet it got dumped by the wayside and we got saddled with the burden of the Hexblade.

If you're going for free material you might also want to consider the Blood Hunter and Gunslinger, if they fit your tone, they're free to access.

I wasn't aware those were free and, funnily enough, this is my first 5e setting where they might fit. Darker fantasy + a bit more technological advancement than most games. I'll give them a look

[Yakmala]

There are a few that come to mind immediately:

Tunnel Fighter Feat: Opportunity attacks without using your reaction are ridiculous, especially when combined with Pole Arm Master and Sentinel.

Lore Wizard: Overpowered.

Mystic: Equal to or better than every other class at everything. Just no.

Storm Sorcerer: Mostly due to Forced Movement, which, when combined with a Warlock dip for EB and Repelling Blast, gets ridiculous.

Undead Patron: The new one that was just published. Sorry, I'm not allowing a Warlock to generate 4D10 + 4D6 + CHA x2 and a fear effect at level 6.

[P. G. Macer]

You already mentioned the big ones of wizard subclasses and psionics. To specify, I also ban the Onomancy Wizard for being broken in both directions; if you don’t know a target’s true name, you’re near without a subclass, but if you do, you’re immensely powerful and can do knockoff Metamagic. The Theurge wizard also gets the ban hammer from me, as max damage Chain Lighting without multi classing is too much, as well as getting cleric features earlier than the cleric. The School of Invention gets the no for me for free damage type changing and being better at Wild Magic than the Wild Magic Sorcerer.

I also disallow the Brute Fighter for making the Champion obsolete.

I may ban the new Undead Warlock Patron if the need arises, since its level 6 feature is busted with Eldritch Blast, though as the Undying Warlock is so forgettable and bad, I wouldn’t ban it for making it obsolete.

I’m leery of the Twilight Domain Cleric, because distributable, unlimited-range, no-mention-of-color Darkvision at Level 1 is a bit much, though my opinion has softened as of late.

As for feats, I wouldn’t allow the Shadowtouched or especially the Feytouched feats, since a free 1st and 2nd level spell that you can also use spell slots for rubs me the wrong way, especially since Fey-Touched can let you pick Hex or Hunter’s Mark. Speaking of Hunter’s Mark, I disallow the Survivalist and Metamagic Adept Feats for treading on the toes of the Ranger and Sorcerer (IMO the two weakest classes in the game), and in the case of the latter being a mandatory feat tax for sorcerers if allowed.
I’m on the fence about Practiced Expert, given that it’s better than Prodigy, but still so darn useful, and allows me to flat-out ban the Skill Feats UA, which I used to have to parse through and allow or disallow individually.

I allow most of the Class Feature Variants UA, though some of the spell list inclusions I don’t approve of for diluting class or subclass identity (e.g. Clerics and Druids getting Aura of Vitality). I also don’t allow the Sorcery Points -> Advantage Font of Magic upgrade, because it makes the Wild Mage’s Tides of Chaos cry in the corner.

So, in summary, the main reason I disallow UA is when it makes existing non-UA options obsolete, “steps on toes”, or dilutes class/subclass identity.

[Paeleus]

The Lore Master wizard has a reputation of being OP. There's also a certain ranger UA that has a crazy feature called Ambuscade I think.

[Luccan]

The Lore Master wizard has a reputation of being OP. There's also a certain ranger UA that has a crazy feature called Ambuscade I think.

The first ranger rework, I think. Whatever I do, I'm only allowing one type of ranger. Given the nature of the recent Class Features UA, probably the standard one, but I'll be working in bonus spells for Hunter if I do (I do this in regular games anyway). I'll do the same for Draconic Sorcerer/other Sorcerers that don't get bonus spells like some of the UAs do.

[Legendairy]

Undead Patron: The new one that was just published. Sorry, I'm not allowing a Warlock to generate 4D10 + 4D6 + CHA x2 and a fear effect at level 6.

What am I missing, where are the 4d6 coming into play? I’m not being sarcastic I’m curious as to what I’m missing.

As I read it you get the extra d10s and the fear effect +cha and turn it all necrotic.

[DarknessEternal]

What am I missing, where are the 4d6 coming into play? I’m not being sarcastic I’m curious as to what I’m missing.

As I read it you get the extra d10s and the fear effect +cha and turn it all necrotic.

Hex. It doubles all dice.

[Luccan]

You already mentioned the big ones of wizard subclasses and psionics. To specify, I also ban the Onomancy Wizard for being broken in both directions; if you don’t know a target’s true name, you’re near without a subclass, but if you do, you’re immensely powerful and can do knockoff Metamagic. The Theurge wizard also gets the ban hammer from me, as max damage Chain Lighting without multi classing is too much, as well as getting cleric features earlier than the cleric. The School of Invention gets the no for me for free damage type changing and being better at Wild Magic than the Wild Magic Sorcerer.

I also disallow the Brute Fighter for making the Champion obsolete.

I may ban the new Undead Warlock Patron if the need arises, since its level 6 feature is busted with Eldritch Blast, though as the Undying Warlock is so forgettable and bad, I wouldn’t ban it for making it obsolete.

I’m leery of the Twilight Domain Cleric, because distributable, unlimited-range, no-mention-of-color Darkvision at Level 1 is a bit much, though my opinion has softened as of late.

As for feats, I wouldn’t allow the Shadowtouched or especially the Feytouched feats, since a free 1st and 2nd level spell that you can also use spell slots for rubs me the wrong way, especially since Fey-Touched can let you pick Hex or Hunter’s Mark. Speaking of Hunter’s Mark, I disallow the Survivalist and Metamagic Adept Feats for treading on the toes of the Ranger and Sorcerer (IMO the two weakest classes in the game), and in the case of the latter being a mandatory feat tax for sorcerers if allowed.
I’m on the fence about Practiced Expert, given that it’s better than Prodigy, but still so darn useful, and allows me to flat-out ban the Skill Feats UA, which I used to have to parse through and allow or disallow individually.

I allow most of the Class Feature Variants UA, though some of the spell list inclusions I don’t approve of for diluting class or subclass identity (e.g. Clerics and Druids getting Aura of Vitality). I also don’t allow the Sorcery Points -> Advantage Font of Magic upgrade, because it makes the Wild Mage’s Tides of Chaos cry in the corner.

So, in summary, the main reason I disallow UA is when it makes existing non-UA options obsolete, “steps on toes”, or dilutes class/subclass identity.

Hmm, the Theurgy wizard getting the 17th level feature 3 levels before the cleric is annoying (although they get the other ones late). Weirdly inconsistent. I assume the Chain Lightning thing has to do with a PHB domain, which for my purposes shouldn't be a problem.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

The only things I don't allow are the one with polished version.

[MrStabby]

So I would allow most things, but I would always prefer that if my players have a concept that they want to play outside of the core, that we homebrew something appropriate at the table.

Some outright bans: lore wizard. Anything superseded.

Mystic can be discussed. The issue is not what it will do but what it can do if built that way. If someone wants a focus on one thing that's fine, if they want to use it to be the best at everything then no.

If you use UA you may not multiclass.

Theurge depends on choices and level. If you are going tempest then no. Most other things are fine for any game that will be between 1 and 13 and sometimes more.

Basically I would prefer not to give a menu that people pick from, but rather pitch a concept with what you need and I will evaluate it overall. A lot of UA has issue with certain interactions and by avoiding those you can make even some silly stuff OK.

[Fnissalot]

Hex. It doubles all dice.

No, it adds 1 die to each attack. Still too strong though. 4D10 + 2D6 + 2xCHA (average 37 damage) and save for a fear effect at level 6 is busted.

[jaappleton]

Anything that can break things in the way they were never intended to be broken.

Lore Wizard's ability to make Hold Person key off Dexterity and enter a never-ending cycle of Paralysis with no hope of escaping is one such example.

Also Theurge. Because taking the Domain Capstone from Clerics and giving it to Wizards three levels earlier is just not OK.

[Mikal]

For those saying no to tunnel fighter- how many of you have actually seen it used in game paired with PAM or Sentinel?


Cause I have. It’s VERY underwhelming. It’s situationally strong, but that situation is easily bypassed by most enemies.

Duelist, defensive, archery are much stronger as they’re always effective.

The same can be said for close quarters shooter. It’s useful but again, weaker than archery as a fighting style, due to you now always having a -1 to hit if you have an enemy or ally blocking your shot instead of the net 0 archery provides.


That being said- I allow all UA unless newer UA or official content supersedes it. So no older psionics no oath of heroism yes to revised ranger and tunnel fighting

[jaappleton]

For those saying no to tunnel fighter- how many of you have actually seen it used in game paired with PAM or Sentinel?


Cause I have. It’s VERY underwhelming. It’s situationally strong, but that situation is easily bypassed by most enemies.

Duelist, defensive, archery are much stronger as they’re always effective.

The same can be said for close quarters shooter. It’s useful but again, weaker than archery as a fighting style, due to you now always having a -1 to hit if you have an enemy or ally blocking your shot instead of the net 0 archery provides.


That being said- I allow all UA unless newer UA or official content supersedes it. So no older psionics no oath of heroism yes to revised ranger and tunnel fighting

I agree Tunnel Fighter is great on paper, but most battlefields allow enemies to bypass such a character with relative easy.

Close Quarters Shooter, I disagree with. If your table allows one UA you typically allow most, within reason. So with the Feat to gain a fighting style now, a VHuman Fighter can start with Archery and CQS, which absolutely breaks the math they intended.

[Mikal]

I agree Tunnel Fighter is great on paper, but most battlefields allow enemies to bypass such a character with relative easy.

Close Quarters Shooter, I disagree with. If your table allows one UA you typically allow most, within reason. So with the Feat to gain a fighting style now, a VHuman Fighter can start with Archery and CQS, which absolutely breaks the math they intended.

A valid point. That does situationally provide issues, especially if you eventually get a magic bow and bracers of archery.

I do think it can be lessened as long as DMs remember the negatives people get for ranger attacks if others are in the line of fire, but a good player can circumvent those.

Edit: but then I’m also fine with the weapon master feats that give +1 to attacks since martials don’t always get a lot of love compared to magical prowess, so the +1 to +3 doesn’t bother me as much.

[MrStabby]

Tunnel fighter is that bad, but I dont find its pole arm mastery that is the issue but rather warcaster.

So take something like a level 2 fiend pact warlock as a v.human with warcaster and a level of fighter for the fighting style. Use a whip so you can still have a shield for AC. Take the invocation that pulls enemies towards you when you hit them with eldritch blast. Command them to flee. They run, het hit by EB, keep running... repeat until you miss or they run out of movement. At level 5 you get two beams...

[Sception]

By default my UA position is if you want it, ask me about it, and I'll generally allow it. if something seems like it could be a problem, it gets a probationary period, and if it proves to actually be a problem in that game on that character in that party then I'll work with the player to make adjustments as necessary, generally tweaking problem content instead of just banning it. Tweaks can be up or down, and i'm willing to adjust published stuff, too.

In my current game, for instance, dragonborn breath attack is a bonus action, and the monk's bonus action dash or dodge don't require ki points as they're generally already in place of an attack, and imo that's tradeoff enough.

[Mikal]

Tunnel fighter is that bad, but I dont find its pole arm mastery that is the issue but rather warcaster.



So you’ve seen this in an actual long term campaign then? Not just white boarded or in one shots? Cause I’ve seen it with warcaster as well and again, in an actual gameplay it’s not bad. You might get one encounter out of 20 where it goes to full effect unless your dm is unimaginative and all enemies fight in a conga line of death within a 5 ft to 10 ft tunnel.

Literally every pc in a game I’ve ran or played in used the fighting style and wished they hadn’t or asked to change to something else. Every. Single. One. And that is without the dm doing anything to actually purposefully counter them- just standard encounters in a mix of module and home brewed content.

[stoutstien]

I usually allow UA unless it is really bad and even then a few minor tweaks bring them in line.

Sometimes I will limit player options in other ways by saying you can use UA X but no multiclassing. Most of this is because I want to see how they actually do as a standalone option before factoring in other things.

[MrStabby]

So you’ve seen this in an actual long term campaign then? Not just white boarded or in one shots? Cause I’ve seen it with warcaster as well and again, in an actual gameplay it’s not bad. You might get one encounter out of 20 where it goes to full effect unless your dm is unimaginative and all enemies fight in a conga line of death within a 5 ft to 10 ft tunnel.

So seen it mainly in one-shots. Mostly because no one wants to lose friends.

But really, it is good enough anyway without tunnel fighter. It isn't like a caster doesn't like to take warcaster or that a level of fighter for heavy armour and more HP isn't a good investment anyway. Command is already a good spell, as is eldritch blast. But yeah, if your campaign is at level 5 you are still probably hitting the BBEG of your plotline for deadly damage in one turn unless they are undead or AC such that you are only hitting them on a 14+, without really having to sacrifice much else to do it. And being able to solo the climactic enemy is a bit of an issue. Warcaster isn't about hitting loads of enemies once, but rather one enemy many, many times on their turn.

[Mikal]

Except of course that eldritch blast is invalid as a warcaster cantrip once it can be used for multiple beams (I.e. becomes multi target)

Weird your friends would not be friends over a less powerful tunnel fighter and not with using a broken and not legal (by RAW) eldritch blast and warcaster.

But yeah, you’ve seen it in a few one shots. I’ve seen it consistently over a few years in multiple campaigns so...

[MrStabby]

Except of course that eldritch blast is invalid as a warcaster cantrip once it can be used for multiple beams (I.e. becomes multi target)

Weird your friends would not be friends over a less powerful tunnel fighter and not with using a broken and not legal (by RAW) eldritch blast and warcaster.

But yeah, you’ve seen it in a few one shots. I’ve seen it consistently over a few years in multiple campaigns so...

Well I dont think that is an issue: "The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature." It stipulates that it does targt only that creature rather than it could only target it. As long as none of the beams are thrown at anything else you are fine I believe. And if you don't like it - replace with lightning lure.

[Mikal]

Even using lightning lure again, I’ve ran campaigns and been in campaigns where the fighting style was used with warcaster from levels 3-20.

Universally, everyone who has used tunnel fighter has either seen it be useless in the majority of the fights and somewhat unsatisfying the rest of the time.

Hell as a DM I’ve had to engineer encounters just to make the pc using it feel like they made a choice that was worthwhile.

Maybe again you play one shots where the enemies are all mindless berserkers who don’t know how to use a ranged weapon and can only move down a 10 foot wide tunnel. Because that’s really the only time such an ability actually shines consistently.

[Misterwhisper]

I allow pretty much every UA feat, the whole UA of alternate class features, even though it makes rogues even less appealing than they already are.

As far as any have come up, I allow the UA version of races that saw print like Warforged and things that were much better in the UA.

Same for some subclasses that were pretty good in UA but sucked in print like the Spore Druid.

It is the subclasses that usually get the big no, but not all of them.

Not even a chance at a discussion of playing them:

Lore Wizard
Undead Warlock
The anime rip off monk subclass.

Most of the rest are fine or at least can be discussed.

[KorvinStarmast]

I no longer allow UA at all.
We had a swashbuckler who worked out well enough, and who then went SCAG Swashbuckler. We had a UA Lore Wizard who did not quite work out.
There is an invocation for warlocks that I'd consider adopting, that gives medium armor and shield ... sort of a blade lock kind of invocation. We might look into that.

We tried a few more UAs a couple of years ago, and they were sloppily done.
Artificer from UA was not a good fit for our campaign. We upgraded it to the E:RFTLW and it's still a poor fit.

I might be tempted to allow the Genie Warlock. Maybe. In the hands of the right player.

There is ample material already; more isn't needed. Heck, I'd like to see the spell lists scrubbed again and reduced by about 10%.

[heavyfuel]

I think I allow anything except the Wizard that allows different saves and energy types (forgot the name)

Brute doesn't make the Champion useless, the Champion is useless regardless of the Brute's existence.

Tunnel Fighter is decent, allowing you to effectively use your Bonus Action for OAs. Even with PAM, you're still one attack behind unless you can trigger OAs against multiple opponents in a round.

Close Quarter Shooter isn't much better than Archery style, and half its benefits are made useless with Sharpshooter. It only breaks the math after you reach 20 Dex, and even then, only by a single point of attack, which means about 8% more damage. Hardly game breaking.

Theurges are among the weakest wizards before level 11, and even after that, they're not the strongest wizards, being far worse than Illusionists (at least upon reaching 14th level)

[ShuckedAeons]

Brute doesn't make the Champion useless, the Champion is useless regardless of the Brute's existence.


it astounds me how often this gets overlooked. Brute doesn't make the champion obsolete. Battle Master does. If anything I see the brute as something to turn a player towards when they want to play a champion.

[Ganryu]

Few Things are just too strong to me, so I ban them outright at my table:

Brute Fighter - Too much Damage AND defensive buffs.
Mystic - Just broken
Twilight Druid - Adding that much damage to AoE can be a bit much.
Tranquility Monk - (Too much healing)
Undead Warlock - (That doubling Eldritch Blast is too much.)
Lore Wizard - Yeah, changing Hold Person to Dex Save's a bit much... AND it gets Expertise

(Also, one baseline. The Ancestral Guardian just wrecks my campaigns cause I prefer one combat with a huge boss, and well.. just doesn't go well..)

But for the most part, I love UA and am willing to work with people. IF something's a bit strong, I'm fine adding to it. I love UA because its more options for players, which is more fun.

I tend to insist people do a UA Ranger one way or another so they can have more fun. And Class Variations is one of my favorite things to use.

[Misterwhisper]

Few Things are just too strong to me, so I ban them outright at my table:

Brute Fighter - Too much Damage AND defensive buffs.
Mystic - Just broken
Twilight Druid - Adding that much damage to AoE can be a bit much.
Tranquility Monk - (Too much healing)
Undead Warlock - (That doubling Eldritch Blast is too much.)
Lore Wizard - Yeah, changing Hold Person to Dex Save's a bit much... AND it gets Expertise

(Also, one baseline. The Ancestral Guardian just wrecks my campaigns cause I prefer one combat with a huge boss, and well.. just doesn't go well..)

But for the most part, I love UA and am willing to work with people. IF something's a bit strong, I'm fine adding to it. I love UA because its more options for players, which is more fun.

I tend to insist people do a UA Ranger one way or another so they can have more fun. And Class Variations is one of my favorite things to use.

The alternate class features UA was amazing for ranger.

Completely spits in the face of rogues and monks but nobody tends to care about them anyway.

[Kane0]

I’ll allow pretty much anything, provided that if it becomes a problem at the table i’ll work with the group to correct it.

[Witty Username]

I don't allow UA as a general rule, some of it is clearly not thought out like a portion of the class feature variants. I have allowed specific UA when asked by a player about it because their character concept couldn't really be done with the published material at the time, but then the artificer came out while we were getting the game set up.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I'd allow anything that is meaningfully weaker than the strongest official option. I despise power creep but i don't have any issues with UA beyond that. For this same reason, i'd also allow certain things without Multi-class that i wouldn't allow it with.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

It generally hasn't come up at my table. The one thing that has that's a no now is combining the Revised Ranger UA with the XGtE subclasses. Each are fine on their own, but they're separate attempts to fix the same problem, and my experience with Gloomstalker + RR was that it was a bit much.

[thoroughlyS]

It generally hasn't come up at my table. The one thing that has that's a no now is combining the Revised Ranger UA with the XGtE subclasses. Each are fine on their own, but they're separate attempts to fix the same problem, and my experience with Gloomstalker + RR was that it was a bit much.
For revised ranger + gloom stalker, I agree with you, because they double dip on certain things. But the Monster Slayer and Horizon Walker will still be fine. The biggest thing that should be done is giving bonus spells to the hunter and beast master, so that they keep up.

[KorvinStarmast]

The biggest thing that should be done is giving bonus spells to the hunter and beast master, so that they keep up. QFT. There are some neat ideas here (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/131163/22566)

[kobo1d]

I haven't banned any on power level concerns. Lore Mastery was close. I consider UA deprecated for two reasons:

1. A newer version of the same content is released in a revised UA, or the material is printed. In most cases, this is obvious (same name). In others, I do my best to follow the designer's intent. For example, if there is an interview on youtube or tweet from Jeremy Crawford about a newly released subclass, and they mention that it’s an evolution of another older UA class, I will deprecate the older subclass.

2. It has also been clarified by JC that UA content older than about a year, with no further iteration or mention of continued development, can safely be deprecated. No printing, updates, radio silence for a whole year? That UA is a dead end design which will never see actual print in anything like its current state. Deprecated.

[Blinx]

Those of you banning the Undead Warlock, what would it take for you to consider its inclusion? It's a cool class that deserves play-testing in my opinion.

The primary argument I've seen is the level 6 ability with eldritch blast, but Hexblade can put out similar damage (especially at higher levels).

Level 6 Eldritch Blast with Hex, +4 Charisma, and corresponding class features (this is when Form of Dread has the largest advantage)-
15 AC: Undead 25.5 vs Hexblade 22.6 (12.8% increase)
20 AC: Undead 16.25 vs 14.6 (11.3% increase)
As levels and ACs increase, Hexblade will do more damage. Plus, Hexblade gets a specter that can deal 3d6 damage a turn which will surpass the Undead at level 6.

Because the subclass damage is arguably stronger earlier but worsens later, I feel it's more appropriate to nerf the level 1 features like the fear or general availability of Form of Dread. I'd just make the attack that fears ineligible for extra necrotic damage to add some decision-making.

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

UA in my campaigns has a general yes, but I will nerf things that don't pass the sniff test.

Example: Lore mastery spell secrets I would limit the damage change to 1 spell chosen at each long rest. On the saving throws I would have only the initial saving throw would be changed.

[Meichrob7]

I absolutely despise mystic and with the new subclasses you don’t even need it to fill that thematic role. I also have had to ban the Lore wizard because someone thought it’d be funny to read half the monster manual and then target the weakest saves of ever enemy.

[Meichrob7]

Revived rogue is also one that is probably fine at most tables but I accidentally got banned at my table because it’s really easy to get two sneak attacks per round with them.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Those of you banning the Undead Warlock, what would it take for you to consider its inclusion? It's a cool class that deserves play-testing in my opinion.

The primary argument I've seen is the level 6 ability with eldritch blast, but Hexblade can put out similar damage (especially at higher levels).

Level 6 Eldritch Blast with Hex, +4 Charisma, and corresponding class features (this is when Form of Dread has the largest advantage)-
15 AC: Undead 25.5 vs Hexblade 22.6 (12.8% increase)
20 AC: Undead 16.25 vs 14.6 (11.3% increase)
As levels and ACs increase, Hexblade will do more damage. Plus, Hexblade gets a specter that can deal 3d6 damage a turn which will surpass the Undead at level 6.

Because the subclass damage is arguably stronger earlier but worsens later, I feel it's more appropriate to nerf the level 1 features like the fear or general availability of Form of Dread. I'd just make the attack that fears ineligible for extra necrotic damage to add some decision-making.

The Hexblade is already too strong so that's a poor argument in my eyes. For me to allow Warlock UA, they should aim for where Fiend is.

[Blinx]

The Hexblade is already too strong so that's a poor argument in my eyes. For me to allow Warlock UA, they should aim for where Fiend is.

Just curious since it's your table and you can do as you see fit, but do you ban hexblade? I agree it's too strong. It's just that the Undead's design philosophy appears to align with Hexblade's, and I think a comparison with its closest existing subclass is valuable. Whether Undead is a good addition with the mechanical overlap with Hexblade and thematic overlap with Undying is up for debate.

My main point is that Undead is relatively close to Hexblade. If people can accept Hexblade (and many don't which is fine), then Undead isn't too wild an idea.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Just curious since it's your table and you can do as you see fit, but do you ban hexblade? I agree it's too strong. It's just that the Undead's design philosophy appears to align with Hexblade's, and I think a comparison with its closest existing subclass is valuable. Whether Undead is a good addition with the mechanical overlap with Hexblade and thematic overlap with Undying is up for debate.

My main point is that Undead is relatively close to Hexblade. If people can accept Hexblade (and many don't which is fine), then Undead isn't too wild an idea.

No, i allow straight Hexblade (but not multiclass). I still think it's too powerful and is a bad measuring stick for future content.

[Snownine]

When I am dming I allow the use of the UA feats as well as the revised ranger. I am willing to allow more than that but I like to be asked about it ahead of time.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'd allow almost anything with my review, so long as it doesn't mechanically/thematically replace something that already exists.

Take the Brute Fighter subclass against the Champion. Both do basically the same goals, the Brute just does it a little bit better.

In that example, I'd rather just change the Champion to be what it is you're looking for. Not only does it cut down on a bunch of outside content, but it gives me insight as to what it is you're looking for. Saying one thing sounds cool gives me one end of the spectrum, but saying this other similar thing does not now gives me a range to work with. Now I have twice as much information than I normally would to give you exactly what you'd want.

Had I just said "Yeah, just play the Brute", we'd have less reason to interact with one another, less opportunities for me to find out what it is you're hoping to get out of DnD. I wouldn't know what you'd want out of the Brute that the Champion couldn't give you, you wouldn't have a reason to tell me, and so we maintain that distance.

[FabulousFizban]

I don't worry too much about balance because I'm the DM, if they start abusing my game I'll kill their character. When it comes to UA I generally only have one rule: You better have your goddamn abilities committed to heart because I am not learning extra sh!t, and when I ask what some bull**** you just said does, I expect a ducking textbook recitation. Violate this rule and lose your UA privileges.

[TheMango55]

Would Undead Warlock work for people if you could only apply one extra damage die per casting of any spell or cantrip? Meaning only one of your blasts would get the extra d10?

It could still give the extra die to each attack of a thirsting blade multiattack, which could make for a viable alternative to hexblade for a melee warlock (far more MAD than hexblade though).

[Great Dragon]

There are a few that come to mind immediately:

Tunnel Fighter Feat: Opportunity attacks without using your reaction are ridiculous, especially when combined with Pole Arm Master and Sentinel.

Lore Wizard: Overpowered.

Mystic: Equal to or better than every other class at everything. Just no.

Storm Sorcerer: Mostly due to Forced Movement, which, when combined with a Warlock dip for EB and Repelling Blast, gets ridiculous.

Undead Patron: The new one that was just published. Sorry, I'm not allowing a Warlock to generate 4D10 + 4D6 + CHA x2 and a fear effect at level 6.

I agreed with you on both Mystic and Lore Wizard.
I actually made two Homebrew Subclasses from the Wizard:

Magus, which focused on the "I'm Smart" parts.

Battle Mage, which focused on the "I'm Potent" parts.
The ideas are in my Ancient Realms (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?591658-Ancient-Realms&p=24665342#post24665342) thread.

I didn't like the UA Satyr Bard, But not from a purely mechanical view, because I haven't had anyone playtest it - but mostly from the RP side of the Subclass. Being virtually immune to retribution in all economic levels, would just break the Social aspect of my game.

Theurgy Wizard went right out the window, for me.
A wizard version of the Divine Soul Sorcerer, just wasn't what I wanted.

In Ancient Realms, there's a long List of things I've tried to bring Hexblade Warlock back down off it's pedestal.
I believe I settled with Medium armor, one martial weapon, and only the Shield spell.

Raven Queen Warlock, I did get someone to playtest this, and found that I needed to change what the Raven Companion did. Being able to duplicate the Chain Pact at level one - made that Pact pointless to take, plus then being able to combine it with either Blade or Tome was just too much for me.
I put in my changes into my Ancient Realms thread.

Haven't gotten any playtesting on Fey Wanderer or Swarmkeeper Rangers, yet.

I changed UA Primeval Guardian Ranger to being a Druid Circle.

Haven't playtested the Circle of Stars Druid,yet.

I want to add to the Circle of Wildfire Druid to include more Elemental types. WIP.

Watch out for the UA Brute Fighter, as their additional damage, while less then a Monk's, stacks with their weapon damages. I'm thinking of limiting this to once per turn.

Haven't playtested Astral Self Monk, but if they only get one extra attack as a Reaction, I can deal with it.

IMO: Tranquility Monk was replaced by Mercy Monk, which the latter seems ok. Need more playtesting.

I looked at the new version of Genie Warlocks, and it seemed an improvement. But, I still need to playtest it.

I also said no to Onomancy Wizards, because I don't have the time to Name everything in the environment around them! And skipping that feature kills the RP for this Archetype.

College of Spirits Bard, seems to make the Lore Bard pointless.... but, need to playtest.

I'm changing Scribes Wizard from "College" to "University", and will be trying to playtest.


Would Undead Warlock work for people if you could only apply one extra damage die per casting of any spell or cantrip? Meaning only one of your blasts would get the extra d10?

It could still give the extra die to each attack of a thirsting blade multiattack, which could make for a viable alternative to hexblade for a melee warlock (far more MAD than hexblade though).

That sounds like a reasonable debuff. So that even combined with Antagonizing Blast this does only 5d10+20 [5 Charisma] force damage (if all 4 blasts used on the same target) maximum at 17th level, instead of 8d10+20 force!
Or even an improved version of the above by Yakmala.
Update: I'm honestly thinking of blending the Undead Warlock into my Undeath Domain. Two similar themed Warlocks, where Undeath seems the most obviously better choice, I'm thinking "Not so much."

Watcher Paladin, looks different enough from Ancients that I want to see more in my game.

Glory Paladin, what was the UA Heroic Paladin - I honestly preferred the Heroic Oath as the name, but do understand why it was changed for the Mythic Odysseys of Theros campaign.

Sorcerers: Sea and Stone need more playtesting.

Clockwork Sorcerer... seemed kinda silly, but I'm willing to do more playtesting.

Mercer's Wildemont:
I'm still on the fence with the Wizard Archetypes.

The Echo Knight Fighter looks very interesting.

Tunnel Fighter Style I changed to Advantage to hit with their Reaction, if in a tight space.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Would Undead Warlock work for people if you could only apply one extra damage die per casting of any spell or cantrip? Meaning only one of your blasts would get the extra d10?

It could still give the extra die to each attack of a thirsting blade multiattack, which could make for a viable alternative to hexblade for a melee warlock (far more MAD than hexblade though).

It would work for me if they just cut the extra damage entirely. That's literally my only complaint.