Unearthed Arcana What does Unearthed Arcana need?

[Xeviat]

Well, we're getting bards tomorrow. Are they going alphabetical? How are the classes already represented, both in official WotC material and UA?

Barbarian: 6; 2 PHB, 1 SCAG, 3 UA
Bard: 6; 2 PHB, 2+2 UA
Cleric: 9; 7 PHB, 1 SCAG, 1 DMG
Druid: 2; 2 PHB
Fighter: 7; 3 PHB, 1 SCAG, 3 UA
Monk: 5; 3 PHB, 2 SCAG
Paladin: 5; 3 PHB, 1 SCAG, 1 DMG
Ranger: 4ish; 2 PHB, 2ish UA (spell-less)
Rogue: 6; 3 PHB, 2 SCAG, 1 UA
Sorcerer: 5; 2 PHB, 1 SCAG, 2 UA
Warlock: 6; 3 PHB, 1 SCAG, 2 UA
Wizard: 10; 8 PHB, 1 SCAG, 1 UA

The druid could really use some new love. Seasons? A new Moon? An animal companion Druid? I'd love to see 4 new builds, 5 if one is a variant moon druid.
The cleric doesn't really need anything, but Protection and some more elements to round out the missing 3E domains might be nice.
The fighter is doing reasonably well. I'd like to see a Templar 1/3rd caster, though; Fighter can have more subclasses than the rest. I've been itching to make a Kensai, Fighter/Monk type thing.
The monk's sitting pretty good, but they could possibly use something else. Mine Book of Nine Swords for ideas; I'd like a Setting Sun Monk who throws people around.
The paladin could use a little.
The ranger is lacking some here, but I'm actually drawing a blank on what they could get.
The rogue is doing okay, but as a "Basic Class", they could always get more. I feel everything is reasonably covered, though.
The sorcerer has gotten some love, but they're a little behind the 6 that is more standard now.
The warlock's gotten a lot of love. I think they're fine for now. Binder-type Warlock would likely be appreciated, though.
The wizard is fine. A universalist would be loved, though.

So, I think the Druid and Ranger need the most love. The land "domains" aren't different enough to be considered separate.

 

[Leatherhead]

Ideally, the UA articles aren't just a bunch of new subclasses. After all, the Ranger is getting a new overhaul top to bottom.

Aside from that, I don't think the quantity of Subclasses is what you should be measuring, but rather the quality of them.
Barbarians need options that aren't Totem. And technically the Totem has like 5 mix and match sub-subclasses anyway.
I think the Cleric needs a ton of work, seeing as how nobody seems to like them, and some people are having trouble imagining their purpose of being.

 

[Zardnaar]

Classes witg only 2 archetypes in the phb.

I have used a few 3pp Druids though and they are more popular than the phb ones.

 

[Horwath]

In latest ranger overhaul, they get 3 conclaves + still usefull spell less variant. So that is 4 or 6 depending how you look at it.

I smell PHB2 or PHB 5.5e within a year or so.

Druid could get rangers beastmaster variant also,

Also some official module for not taking starting armor proficiencies with a class that doesn't fit in your character concept and what to get for that instead.

 

[CapnZapp]

Ideally, the UA articles aren't just a bunch of new subclasses.

This.

 

[CapnZapp]

What does Unearthed Arcana need?

• An article that discusses the drawbacks on designing monsters with the assumption no or few magic items are available to the heroes. Openly confessing how campaigns can easily wreck the balance simply by using the treasure chapter as presented.
• ...admitting monsters are generally on the weak side, even compared to the game's own DMG guidelines, and confesses the design is always on the safe side, with monsters mostly having lost of hit points but moderate to weak attacks, so newbs aren't slaughtered inadvertently. And then offers suggestions such as "with experienced players, consider adding one damage die to tier III creatures and two to tier IV creatures. Also make sure any high-CR monster has either a ranged attack capacity or a way to teleport into melee, since otherwise it is too easy for experienced players to turn high-CR monsters into unintentional low-CR jokes" to tide us over until sharper tools become available.
• A way to spend gold in campaigns that eschew downtime. In other words, a robust way to convert your gold into magic items. (And/or XP for those who like XP for gold campaigns)
• A new magic item pricing and creation system that is based on usefulness - better items cost more. Acknowledging that basing prices on rarity is a hack and a cop out that doesn't work in a prolonged campaign.
• Acknowledgement that it gets old and stale if even mightily high-level heroes can't buy anything better than Potions of Healing, even though they're friends with Archmages, Emperors and Demon Princes. In other words, we need price lists for scrolls and potions at tiers II & III (where prices are based on rational decisions - utility, not rarity) and low- to moderate permanent items at tiers III & IV.

 

[CapnZapp]

What does Unearthed Arcana need?

An article that explores ways to open up metamagic for those who'd like all spellcasters to have access to metamagic, from cautiously adding a Magic Initiate type of feat, to a full-blown extraction of the metamagic subsystem out of the Sorcerer class, complete with a replacement for those who feel a concept as abstract and intellectual as metamagic is a poor fit for a spontaneous natural caster such as the Sorcerer.

Psionics. Hopefully the 5E design realizes that something akin to the DMG spellpoint variant is really really hard to balance. The Sorcerer's sorcery point system is a much better implementation of a way to convert spell slots into other spell slots without that getting out of control. (Spell or power point systems has always had a huge problem: it's way too easy for a Psion to abuse the 5 minute workday by blowing all her PPs on huge effects and then calling it a day)

And metamagic is a much better fit for Intelligence-based classes like Wizard or Psion anyways.

That doesn't mean I am denying Sorcerers the ability to shoot twin rays or cast spells when bound and gagged. Only that these effects should not be described using metamagic terminology. Sorcerers might do that, but they do it subconsciously, spontaneously and by raw manipulation. They should not have to bother with "metamagic points". They should simply get (to choose) a number of Quickens or Stills or Subtles, and then simply use them as needed. No point system. No way to exchange one thing for another.

Leave the calculations and the arithmetic to the brainy ones, the trained ones, the disciplined ones. Psions first and foremost, but I would love for Clerics and possibly even Druids and Bards to have metamagic too. Even Wizards, though I acknowledge how the schools grant similar effects already.

And while we're at the subject: metamagic should not be one monolithic subject!

While I'm okay with Sorcerers casting spells without verbal or somatic components, no way that ability should be called "subtle"!

Sorcerers doesn't do subtle! Bookworms and nerds do subtle, and Sorcerers aren't either!

Likewise, while Empower and Extend are effects appropriate for Sorcerers, Careful is not. I would definitely not mind if each metamagic-capable class got its own tailor-made list of possible metamagic effects. For instance, Careful and Subtle fits Bards like a glove. Perhaps those two are the only ones they get?

If there should be one class that gets them all, it sure is Psion.

 

[CapnZapp]

What does Unearthed Arcana need?

An article that discusses ways to extend, or relax, the notions of Concentration and attunement slots.

We are, after all, several years into the edition. Stepping up the game to expert level is definitely due.

For instance, the Wizard's level 18 class feature Spell Mastery could offer the following alternative benefits:

"Select a first and second level spell with the Concentration requirement. When you cast either, you can then cast another spell requiring Concentration without breaking your concentration of your mastered spell. In effect, Spell Mastery allows you to concentrate on two spells simultaneously, provided at least one of them is a mastered spell. If your Concentration is broken for any reason, you lose both spells"

Then add at least one (Very Rare?) magic item that enables something similar, to set a precedent for breaking the Concentration ceiling in a controlled way.

---

In tier IV, I predict that the 3 attunement rule will become restrictive to the point of not being fun anymore.

How about an advanced rule that allows you to switch out one regular attunement "slot" (that can be used for any eligible item) for two lesser attunement "slots" (that can only be used for lesser items)?

After all, sometimes a player will want to keep a less rare item for personal reasons (it's her heirloom, it's the weapon of his first defeated foe, it just looks good on me, etc) even when common sense tells him or her to ditch it for something mechanically more powerful, and the rigid attunement system denies him or her to have both.

Where "lesser" might be defined as:
Tier II hero - Common items
Tier III hero - Uncommon items
Tier IV hero - Rare items

In practice, this would allow a level 17-20 hero to attune to either three legendary items, or six rare items, or any of a number of combinations in between.

 

[Dausuul]

• An article that discusses the drawbacks on designing monsters with the assumption no or few magic items are available to the heroes. Openly confessing how campaigns can easily wreck the balance simply by using the treasure chapter as presented.
• ...admitting monsters are generally on the weak side, even compared to the game's own DMG guidelines, and confesses the design is always on the safe side, with monsters mostly having lost of hit points but moderate to weak attacks, so newbs aren't slaughtered inadvertently. And then offers suggestions such as "with experienced players, consider adding one damage die to tier III creatures and two to tier IV creatures. Also make sure any high-CR monster has either a ranged attack capacity or a way to teleport into melee, since otherwise it is too easy for experienced players to turn high-CR monsters into unintentional low-CR jokes" to tide us over until sharper tools become available.
• A way to spend gold in campaigns that eschew downtime. In other words, a robust way to convert your gold into magic items. (And/or XP for those who like XP for gold campaigns)
• A new magic item pricing and creation system that is based on usefulness - better items cost more. Acknowledging that basing prices on rarity is a hack and a cop out that doesn't work in a prolonged campaign.
• Acknowledgement that it gets old and stale if even mightily high-level heroes can't buy anything better than Potions of Healing, even though they're friends with Archmages, Emperors and Demon Princes. In other words, we need price lists for scrolls and potions at tiers II & III (where prices are based on rational decisions - utility, not rarity) and low- to moderate permanent items at tiers III & IV.

Is this supposed to be Unearthed Arcana or Game Designer Confession?

"Forgive me, father, for I have sinned. I have put monsters in the Monster Manual that do not follow the DMG CR guidelines."

 

[Parmandur]

Earlier this year, [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] let us know what the Class expansion priorities of the fanbase were after the survey that first mentioned the Big Book of Mechanics. Sorcerer and Druid are the big design priorities, followed by Fighter and Warlock. Cleric and Wizard are the lowest priority, expect more spells, fewer subclasses:

"In our last survey, we asked you which areas of D&D you thought needed expansion, and solicited feedback for the latest revision of the mystic character class and new rules for psionics.

In terms of overall content, feats were far and away the most requested new element. Over 70 percent of you want more feats for your game. Feats also had the least opposition to their expansion. Because we haven’t released any products focused on new feats since the launch of the game, we know there’s definitely some pent-up demand for them. But feats are perhaps the thorniest element to design for D&D, as they tend to span multiple abilities and can trigger weird interactions that the game’s core design can’t always account for. As a result, we’ll be taking things slowly as we explore options and starting points for new feat development.

A desire for more character classes came next behind feats, with spells and races clustered not far behind that. We asked in detail about classes, with the ranger easily leading the pack. The sorcerer and druid were the next most popular choices, followed by the fighter and warlock. The rest of the classes were mostly clustered together, with the exception of the wizard and cleric. Both those classes received much less support for new options, making me suspect that most players would rather see additional spells for those classes."