I put down that w3ith this Adventure/Setting with nothing for martial classes or clerics why would anyone play them, and I believe D&D is about including everyone and that includes folks that like fighters, rogues, paladins, rangers, artificers, clerics did I miss any classes?
I still don't understand this perspective. Most settings top out at two subclasses. Van Richten had a Bard and a Warlock. Theros had a Bard and a Paladin. Why is everyone so irritated that there's "nothing for martial classes or clerics?" This UA alone is offering us more subclasses than any 5e setting book I can think of. People are mad that this UA indicates that a book probably won't do something that no other setting book has done. Is everyone making this complaint new enough to 5e that Tasha is the only book they have?
I put down that w3ith this Adventure/Setting with nothing for martial classes or clerics why would anyone play them, and I believe D&D is about including everyone and that includes folks that like fighters, rogues, paladins, rangers, artificers, clerics did I miss any classes?
I still don't understand this perspective. Most settings top out at two subclasses. Van Richten had a Bard and a Warlock. Theros had a Bard and a Paladin. Why is everyone so irritated that there's "nothing for martial classes or clerics?" This UA alone is offering us more subclasses than any 5e setting book I can think of. People are mad that this UA indicates that a book probably won't do something that no other setting book has done. Is everyone making this complaint new enough to 5e that Tasha is the only book they have?
I think the issue is that Van Richten, Theros, Eberron, and Ravnica introduced features that any class could participate in.
Ravnica's guild backgrounds. Eberron's dragonmarks. Theros's supernatural gifts. Van Richten's dark gifts.
If Strixhaven's general "thing" is through the lens of subclasses that can be applied to multiple classes and in the absence of any news of something for the classes not included to chew on people assume there won't be anything for them at all. Which could very easily be wrong, we don't know yet.
Yeah, but...we're talking about a UA, not a book. The only UA we got from those books were also subclasses. Everyone's judging this thing by a rubric we've...never used? It's absurd and getting kinda irritating.
Yeah, but...we're talking about a UA, not a book. The only UA we got from those books were also subclasses. Everyone's judging this thing by a rubric we've...never used? It's absurd and getting kinda irritating.
I don't think those subclass UAs were announced as being for specific upcoming books, at least for Theros and Van Richten anyway.*
They were just presented as subclasses and nothing more, there was no direct and obvious link outside of people making inferences themselves.
Contrast the Strixhaven subclasses are very explicitly and officially meant for Strixhaven. Also these are cross-class subclasses a mechanic we've never seen, judging them purely by the same past rubrics may or may not be apt because of this. And Strixhaven is set to come out this November so who knows how many rounds of UA these features will see or even have the time to go through, etc.
I'm not necessarily saying the complaints about classes not included in the UA are justified, mind, it just seems pretty understandable.
*I wasn't really paying close attention to UAs before Artificer Revisited, so I can't speak for Ravnica. And Eberron was probably a poor example for me to include.
The fact that we know which book they're for...doesn't change any of that? Any extrapolation that the whole book is going to exclude martials or half-casters or clerics is still just "people making inferences themselves." I wouldn't be remotely surprised if the only reason the word "Strixhaven" appeared on the UA is that without it, none of the lore or the concept of "cross-class" subs would make any sense whatsoever and be rejected out-of-hand by the community, instead of the more moderately mixed reception it's gotten. I genuinely don't think they could release this UA without giving some idea of what they would be for without it being absolutely just...dumped on across the board.
Left the UA alone for nearly two weeks and have to say that I still felt the same about a lot of the things I saw when I came back to it... Just filled out the survey and tried to share as many of the problems I saw with the subclasses. I really do hope the team is able to take another critical look at how powerful some of the features they introduced are and reel them back even just a tiny bit to be a little more sensible at a common game table...
I put down that w3ith this Adventure/Setting with nothing for martial classes or clerics why would anyone play them, and I believe D&D is about including everyone and that includes folks that like fighters, rogues, paladins, rangers, artificers, clerics did I miss any classes?
I still don't understand this perspective. Most settings top out at two subclasses. Van Richten had a Bard and a Warlock. Theros had a Bard and a Paladin. Why is everyone so irritated that there's "nothing for martial classes or clerics?" This UA alone is offering us more subclasses than any 5e setting book I can think of. People are mad that this UA indicates that a book probably won't do something that no other setting book has done. Is everyone making this complaint new enough to 5e that Tasha is the only book they have?
My issue is this future book is being advertised as an adventure first and foremost I and others say setting due to all the subclasses we got in the UA. But what will the adventure hold for the classes not included?
It's not, though. It's under Sourcebooks on Beyond and every time it's been discussed it's been as a campaign setting. Most campaign settings have had a short adventure in it, but this is a setting book like Ravnica or Theros.
Yes, to the point that they've said they're not going to implement this UA.
Really? I'm surprised. They only had to make the subclasses for each of the individual classes! As if it were a subclass for a single class, rather than many.
Just finished the survey. Expressed concerns with power, balance, offered changes to limited-use things, stuff like that, criticized which base classes each sub applies to (WHY IS PRISMARI NOT AVAILABLE TO BARD) and so on. Was very honest about the bits I wasn't fond of, but also underlined that I love that they're playing with weird ideas like cross-class subs and playing with the rules and our expectations and so on and that I really want to see the cross-class thing survive to the final book in November.
Yes, to the point that they've said they're not going to implement this UA.
Really? I'm surprised. They only had to make the subclasses for each of the individual classes! As if it were a subclass for a single class, rather than many.
Yeah, I've said before that I've worked with the homebrew tools enough I could probably do it in a weekend. The only thing I wouldn't know how to implement would be multiclass-related (preventing a character with Druid 2 and Warlock 1 from taking Witherbloom twice, though I don't know why you'd want to) but multiclassing is still a variant/optional rule, no matter how much "the community" demands that every UA and new official book take it into account at every turn.
If you'd scroll up a bit, you'll see that the devs have said they won't be implementing this UA. Not even sure if if the official versions will be implemented when the books come out if they maintain the cross-class aspect.
I am playing a Lorehold Wizard now. Had my first session last night, of course I’m just using character sheets and my phone and stuff to track things and the build. It’s really good, giving wizard that kind of action economy to like cast something like hold person or tashas mind whip and then run around and do stuff with your summon like it’s an extra player is just super good obviously. One thing Ive been confused on is the summoning process, the way we did it and how I understand it to be is that you basically need to find a statue to do this process with. Unless the spirit just pops up AS a statue. Like you are housing the spirits inside of an old statue or something and so you need to find the medium free standing statue first. That was a lot of good role play, and I ask my DM to play as the summon as well or at least voice it. Stone Cold VanClausen the warrior. (15 HP 16 AC and a first level slot to heal 10hp with a death resist 5+dmg DC mechanic is nasty tbh)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I still don't understand this perspective. Most settings top out at two subclasses. Van Richten had a Bard and a Warlock. Theros had a Bard and a Paladin. Why is everyone so irritated that there's "nothing for martial classes or clerics?" This UA alone is offering us more subclasses than any 5e setting book I can think of. People are mad that this UA indicates that a book probably won't do something that no other setting book has done. Is everyone making this complaint new enough to 5e that Tasha is the only book they have?
I think the issue is that Van Richten, Theros, Eberron, and Ravnica introduced features that any class could participate in.
Ravnica's guild backgrounds.
Eberron's dragonmarks.
Theros's supernatural gifts.
Van Richten's dark gifts.
If Strixhaven's general "thing" is through the lens of subclasses that can be applied to multiple classes and in the absence of any news of something for the classes not included to chew on people assume there won't be anything for them at all. Which could very easily be wrong, we don't know yet.
Yeah, but...we're talking about a UA, not a book. The only UA we got from those books were also subclasses. Everyone's judging this thing by a rubric we've...never used? It's absurd and getting kinda irritating.
I don't think those subclass UAs were announced as being for specific upcoming books, at least for Theros and Van Richten anyway.*
They were just presented as subclasses and nothing more, there was no direct and obvious link outside of people making inferences themselves.
Contrast the Strixhaven subclasses are very explicitly and officially meant for Strixhaven. Also these are cross-class subclasses a mechanic we've never seen, judging them purely by the same past rubrics may or may not be apt because of this. And Strixhaven is set to come out this November so who knows how many rounds of UA these features will see or even have the time to go through, etc.
I'm not necessarily saying the complaints about classes not included in the UA are justified, mind, it just seems pretty understandable.
*I wasn't really paying close attention to UAs before Artificer Revisited, so I can't speak for Ravnica. And Eberron was probably a poor example for me to include.
The fact that we know which book they're for...doesn't change any of that? Any extrapolation that the whole book is going to exclude martials or half-casters or clerics is still just "people making inferences themselves." I wouldn't be remotely surprised if the only reason the word "Strixhaven" appeared on the UA is that without it, none of the lore or the concept of "cross-class" subs would make any sense whatsoever and be rejected out-of-hand by the community, instead of the more moderately mixed reception it's gotten. I genuinely don't think they could release this UA without giving some idea of what they would be for without it being absolutely just...dumped on across the board.
Left the UA alone for nearly two weeks and have to say that I still felt the same about a lot of the things I saw when I came back to it... Just filled out the survey and tried to share as many of the problems I saw with the subclasses. I really do hope the team is able to take another critical look at how powerful some of the features they introduced are and reel them back even just a tiny bit to be a little more sensible at a common game table...
Again, I'm not trying to defend the complaints. Just trying to explain what the perspective seems to be to me.
My issue is this future book is being advertised as an adventure first and foremost I and others say setting due to all the subclasses we got in the UA. But what will the adventure hold for the classes not included?
It's not, though. It's under Sourcebooks on Beyond and every time it's been discussed it's been as a campaign setting. Most campaign settings have had a short adventure in it, but this is a setting book like Ravnica or Theros.
Has there been a difficulty implementing Mages of Strixhaven UA on DnD Beyond?
Yes, to the point that they've said they're not going to implement this UA.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Really? I'm surprised. They only had to make the subclasses for each of the individual classes! As if it were a subclass for a single class, rather than many.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Just finished the survey. Expressed concerns with power, balance, offered changes to limited-use things, stuff like that, criticized which base classes each sub applies to (WHY IS PRISMARI NOT AVAILABLE TO BARD) and so on. Was very honest about the bits I wasn't fond of, but also underlined that I love that they're playing with weird ideas like cross-class subs and playing with the rules and our expectations and so on and that I really want to see the cross-class thing survive to the final book in November.
Yeah, I've said before that I've worked with the homebrew tools enough I could probably do it in a weekend. The only thing I wouldn't know how to implement would be multiclass-related (preventing a character with Druid 2 and Warlock 1 from taking Witherbloom twice, though I don't know why you'd want to) but multiclassing is still a variant/optional rule, no matter how much "the community" demands that every UA and new official book take it into account at every turn.
Have anyone successfully implemented the witherbloom subclass for druids? I saw the warlock get it.
Also has anyone successfully complete implemented the other subclasses?
Warlock isn't implemented on Beyond and won't be, unless you mean homebrew. Same with Druid and any of the others.
Homebrew was I meant when I said by anyone not just the Devs. My apologies for not being more precise.
When will this go live in character creation for playtest?
If you'd scroll up a bit, you'll see that the devs have said they won't be implementing this UA. Not even sure if if the official versions will be implemented when the books come out if they maintain the cross-class aspect.
I am playing a Lorehold Wizard now. Had my first session last night, of course I’m just using character sheets and my phone and stuff to track things and the build. It’s really good, giving wizard that kind of action economy to like cast something like hold person or tashas mind whip and then run around and do stuff with your summon like it’s an extra player is just super good obviously. One thing Ive been confused on is the summoning process, the way we did it and how I understand it to be is that you basically need to find a statue to do this process with. Unless the spirit just pops up AS a statue. Like you are housing the spirits inside of an old statue or something and so you need to find the medium free standing statue first. That was a lot of good role play, and I ask my DM to play as the summon as well or at least voice it. Stone Cold VanClausen the warrior. (15 HP 16 AC and a first level slot to heal 10hp with a death resist 5+dmg DC mechanic is nasty tbh)