i realize this is all in playtest portion and will be adjusted down the road (like the warforged race was), but right now, it’s like they don’t even try to balance things initially. They just throw it out there, and then balance it after the fact.
is this a marketing ploy to keep it in the forefront of topics and mentions and people’s thoughts and such to just bring out content, however imbalance, to bring people in and then worry about balancing it later?
It's not so much a play as it is a tactic. I saw it in a YouTube video, but it's probably mentioned elsewhere; the UA stuff is written as "super cool" and/or overpowered on purpose.
It's so that the abilities sound fun to play (so that people will give play testing a shot) and they said it was easier to start OP and scale the power down rather than the other way around.
Thing is, once people know that this whole "make it crazy awesome and nerf the shit out of it in post" thing is Wizards' game plan, it removes any and all real interest in UA from anything but an academic standpoint. What that says to me is that no DM should ever allow UA in their game unless they're homebrewing monsters and disregarding encounter math already, and also you should never get attached to anything that hits in UA.
We all saw that with the Alchemist artificer and the artificer in general, and it's why I just sorta find myself rolling my eyes and mostly ignoring this unceasing awful riptide deluge of weird, janky, overpowered and underdeveloped subclasses. Seriously. It's just not fun anymore, and nobody and nothing can "playtest" these things when there's a brand new set clamoring for your attention every thirteen seconds.
i wouldn't be too concerned about the armorer getting their missing limbs back i mean its literally 50 gp to get a magic common item that does the same thing Prosthetic Limb. that DOES require you to attune to it but at low lvl's you really shouldn't have enough magic items to do that. but honestly i personally have never seen a game where someone lost a limb to start. but i like the idea of using it on a lvl 3 or higher character as part of there backstory; im actually playing one right now started off with 1 arm, 1 hand , a foot up to the knee and a eye removed as he was born into a warrior culture as an invalid with shriveled limbs and blind in one eye. imagine playing a char parallelized from the waist down dreams of walking again seeing the world but he stuck bound to his home; then with time and study he begins tinkering and making wonder's to fulfill that dream.
or you could sacrifice your arm for knowledge odin style
i wouldn't be too concerned about the armorer getting their missing limbs back i mean its literally 50 gp to get a magic common item that does the same thing Prosthetic Limb. that DOES require you to attune to it but at low lvl's you really shouldn't have enough magic items to do that. but honestly i personally have never seen a game where someone lost a limb to start. but i like the idea of using it on a lvl 3 or higher character as part of there backstory; im actually playing one right now started off with 1 arm, 1 hand , a foot up to the knee and a eye removed as he was born into a warrior culture as an invalid with shriveled limbs and blind in one eye. imagine playing a char parallelized from the waist down dreams of walking again seeing the world but he stuck bound to his home; then with time and study he begins tinkering and making wonder's to fulfill that dream.
or you could sacrifice your arm for knowledge odin style
Is there actually a mechanic for losing limbs? I dont know if I've ever seen it.
i wouldn't be too concerned about the armorer getting their missing limbs back i mean its literally 50 gp to get a magic common item that does the same thing Prosthetic Limb. that DOES require you to attune to it but at low lvl's you really shouldn't have enough magic items to do that. but honestly i personally have never seen a game where someone lost a limb to start. but i like the idea of using it on a lvl 3 or higher character as part of there backstory; im actually playing one right now started off with 1 arm, 1 hand , a foot up to the knee and a eye removed as he was born into a warrior culture as an invalid with shriveled limbs and blind in one eye. imagine playing a char parallelized from the waist down dreams of walking again seeing the world but he stuck bound to his home; then with time and study he begins tinkering and making wonder's to fulfill that dream.
or you could sacrifice your arm for knowledge odin style
Is there actually a mechanic for losing limbs? I dont know if I've ever seen it.
There's an injury table in the Dungeon Master's Guide. You roll a d20, and on a 2 or 3, you can lose a limb. You can also potentially lose an eye, have your ribs broken, or get a nasty scar. The regenerate spell is actually super useful if the DM bothers to use an injury table.
yup its one of those optional rule if im not mistaken
Otherwise, I use the Prosthetic Limb for NPCs that want to seem tough.
I do think they make to many Unearthed Arcana for anyone to seriously playtest it, but it is handy to let the community know what you're working on and contribute, whether or not the feedback is helpful. It helps for players and DMs to find the broken combinations in UA before they're published, so they can fix them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Otherwise, I use the Prosthetic Limb for NPCs that want to seem tough.
I do think they make to many Unearthed Arcana for anyone to seriously playtest it, but it is handy to let the community know what you're working on and contribute, whether or not the feedback is helpful. It helps for players and DMs to find the broken combinations in UA before they're published, so they can fix them.
well its important to remember that not everyone will be interested in any given sub class so diversity isnt going to be the issue.
does the ring of spell refueling specifically state only the artificer can use it? If it does. I missed where it said that.
it just says the pre-requisite to doing it is a 6th level artificer. It doesn’t say the artificer has to be the one using the ring.
As to:
”The Helm of Awareness doesn't invalidate Alert, it makes it better for players that want to have as high an initiative as possible. Alert gives you a +5 to initiative, the Helm of Awareness gives you advantage. It makes you better at why you took Alert in the first place.”
having advantage is the same as having a +5 per the PhB.
and since the rest of alert users redundant to this...
it completely invalidates alert. — I would like it more if it didn’t give the advantage but gave the other stuff. Or only gave the advantage. I dunno. I just don’t think feats should be invalidated completely otherwise why are the feats even there if they are almost completely useless. We all know THOSE feats...
Anyone that is attuned to it can use the ring, the Artificer will just ultimately get the most mileage out of it. I think basing it off of the number of items is a nice balancing act, it essentially allows an Artificer to create a scaled back version of a Pearl of Power.
Thing is, once people know that this whole "make it crazy awesome and nerf the shit out of it in post" thing is Wizards' game plan, it removes any and all real interest in UA from anything but an academic standpoint. What that says to me is that no DM should ever allow UA in their game unless they're homebrewing monsters and disregarding encounter math already, and also you should never get attached to anything that hits in UA.
We all saw that with the Alchemist artificer and the artificer in general, and it's why I just sorta find myself rolling my eyes and mostly ignoring this unceasing awful riptide deluge of weird, janky, overpowered and underdeveloped subclasses. Seriously. It's just not fun anymore, and nobody and nothing can "playtest" these things when there's a brand new set clamoring for your attention every thirteen seconds.
Yes nothing says you are ignoring it, like commenting on how terrible it WILL be. Yeah, armorer is going to be nerfed, I’m just glad they are trying new ideas.
....What that says to me is that no DM should ever allow UA in their game unless they're homebrewing monsters and disregarding encounter math already, and also you should never get attached to anything that hits in UA.
.... and nobody and nothing can "playtest" these things when there's a brand new set clamoring for your attention every thirteen seconds.
Nobody play tests anything. If you actually run a poll most (almost everyone who responds) people will tell you that their games do not allow UA materials. For example, I put out two separate polls inquiring about the Pact of the Talisman. Only one person who responded to either poll admitted to actually trying it out, but I got at least a half-dozen responses from people whose “DM’s don’t allow UA,” but most of them could tell me why it sucked.
If nobody allows UA in their campaigns then people are giving their feedback to WotC blindly. WotC is then taking all of that info, and tweaking/not tweaking the UA materials based on that untested feedback. Then they release it, and all of a sudden people are complaining about the “officially published” versions and half of them end up wishing that things were more like the UA. Case in point, the Alchemist.
does the ring of spell refueling specifically state only the artificer can use it? If it does. I missed where it said that.
it just says the pre-requisite to doing it is a 6th level artificer. It doesn’t say the artificer has to be the one using the ring.
Ring of Spell Refueling:
While wearing this ring, the creature can recover one expended spell slot as an action. The maximum level of the recovered slot is equal to the number of magic items the wearer is currently attuned to. Once used, the ring can’t be used again until the next dawn.
While anyone can use the ring of spell refueling only casters with spell slots get any benefit from it, the maximum level spell slot that can be recovered for any class other than an artificer is 3rd level since the the general maximum number of attuned items is 3 basically the equivalent to a pearl of power, only artificers can attune to up to 6 magic items and even then it depends on the level of the artificer and unless an artificer is multiclassing they only get 5th level spell slots.
So:
Non-caster: No benefit as they have no spell slots to recover. Non-Artificer caster: Can at most recover a 3rd level spell slot (equal to a pearl of power) Artificer: Can at most recover a 5th level spell slot (requires a 17 levels of artificer to get 5th level spell slots) Artificer-Multiclass: Can at most recover a 6th level spell slot. (requires at least 18 levels of artificer to be able to attune to a 6th magic item)
Artificers get the best value out of a spell refueling ring.
A. For spell refueling ring, for artificer it is an extra spell slot, for literally anybody else it is an additional 3rd level spell slot.
B. Artificers have been able to "recreate limbs" since level 2 with the prosthetic limb infusion. If your DM is removing limbs from your characters and applying a mechanical penalty, without giving you the option or ability to get around that penalty, chances are your DM is an *******.
C. Succeeding on concentration checks, while useful, is nowhere near as good as reliable talent. Yes, it can come in handy, but only if you are making them already. It is a feature. It is not an overpowered one.
D. A tenth level feature "replacing" a feat is an absolutely reasonable feature. Feats, mostly, are not that powerful (barring a few exceptions).
There's some vague wording in the Armorer document that I'm not sure what to make of, specifically the Guardian weapons.
It says that "each" fist is a weapon that deals 1d8 etc etc, though logically you're only ever going to swing with one. What if you have the Dual Wielder feat, though? Losing the "light" requirement technically means you could dual wield Guardian fists, and since you have two... I mean, at low levels the temp HP bonus action doesn't do a whole lot anyway, so you may as well come out swinging with an offhand weapon.
The other thing is, with the weapons being integrated, how does it impact holding other objects? Could I hold a greataxe, and at 5th level swing it once and thunderpunch once for the tanking effect? Or, with the Infiltrator armor, could I use the chest-mounted beam in the same turn as a heavy crossbow I hold in two hands, to maximize potential damage output (since the Infiltrator weapon does an extra 1d6 once per turn max)?
A lot of these could probably be DM-fiat but it seems weird to me that this level of ambiguity exists outside of like, SCAG.
There's some vague wording in the Armorer document that I'm not sure what to make of, specifically the Guardian weapons.
It says that "each" fist is a weapon that deals 1d8 etc etc, though logically you're only ever going to swing with one. What if you have the Dual Wielder feat, though? Losing the "light" requirement technically means you could dual wield Guardian fists, and since you have two... I mean, at low levels the temp HP bonus action doesn't do a whole lot anyway, so you may as well come out swinging with an offhand weapon.
The other thing is, with the weapons being integrated, how does it impact holding other objects? Could I hold a greataxe, and at 5th level swing it once and thunderpunch once for the tanking effect? Or, with the Infiltrator armor, could I use the chest-mounted beam in the same turn as a heavy crossbow I hold in two hands, to maximize potential damage output (since the Infiltrator weapon does an extra 1d6 once per turn max)?
A lot of these could probably be DM-fiat but it seems weird to me that this level of ambiguity exists outside of like, SCAG.
The Dual Wielder feat would work and be advantageous since it would give you potentially another enemy to draw aggro from. You likely wouldn't need the bonus hp every turn so you could just mix and match thp and offhand attack as needed.
It's described as your fists counting as simple weapons, like how a Tabaxi has claws, so it wound't hinder your ability to hold things and you can mix attacks (with Extra Attack) as you please. There's no conflict between the chest mounted beam and a heavy crossbow, though you don't have to actually hold the cross bow in two hands unless you're shooting it so you could use a fist mounted one too (though I see no benefit to not just using the chest one all the time).
I don't see this as ambiguity (for one it's playtest documentation that hasn't seen an editor) but also with the way 5e rules work it seems pretty straightforward, they're simple melee weapons, why would you treat them any differently than a couple maces? If there's no text saying to treat them any differently, then just treat them as normal.
....What that says to me is that no DM should ever allow UA in their game unless they're homebrewing monsters and disregarding encounter math already, and also you should never get attached to anything that hits in UA.
.... and nobody and nothing can "playtest" these things when there's a brand new set clamoring for your attention every thirteen seconds.
Nobody play tests anything. If you actually run a poll most (almost everyone who responds) people will tell you that their games do not allow UA materials. For example, I put out two separate polls inquiring about the Pact of the Talisman. Only one person who responded to either poll admitted to actually trying it out, but I got at least a half-dozen responses from people whose “DM’s don’t allow UA,” but most of them could tell me why it sucked.
If nobody allows UA in their campaigns then people are giving their feedback to WotC blindly. WotC is then taking all of that info, and tweaking/not tweaking the UA materials based on that untested feedback. Then they release it, and all of a sudden people are complaining about the “officially published” versions and half of them end up wishing that things were more like the UA. Case in point, the Alchemist.
I have Played with many DMs who have allowed it. And have actually play tested tester things I comment on. I track both my before take and my “after playtest” take on things. So I can see how my view myself changed too, and I include that in my feedback.
Ah I see it now. I was misreading it as it restored any spell a lot a number of times equal to how many items they were attuned to.
i got no problem with how it ACTUALLY is. In that you restore 1 spell slot, equal to the number of magic items you are attuned to (1-6).
It's fine. You just read it wrong, and was trying to let you know how it actually works. Only one spell slot once a day, level of the slot equal to the amount of magic items they are attuned to, so maximum of 6th level for Artificer Multiclass. It isn't broken, just handy. The way you thought it worked, definitely broken, and wouldn't allow it. Anyone can attune to it, but certain people get better use of it than others.
”The Helm of Awareness doesn't invalidate Alert, it makes it better for players that want to have as high an initiative as possible. Alert gives you a +5 to initiative, the Helm of Awareness gives you advantage. It makes you better at why you took Alert in the first place.”
having advantage is the same as having a +5 per the PhB.
and since the rest of alert users redundant to this...
it completely invalidates alert. — I would like it more if it didn’t give the advantage but gave the other stuff. Or only gave the advantage. I dunno. I just don’t think feats should be invalidated completely otherwise why are the feats even there if they are almost completely useless. We all know THOSE feats...
Advantage doesn't equal a +5. It is a similar statistical increase, but not the same thing. Any player I know would love to have one of these rings if it gave them advantage on initiative, and they already had alert. Sure, they don't get full advantage of both magic items, but they do stack, and makes them even better at initiative.
Maybe you don't like it because certain parts of it invalidate certain parts of Alert, but that may not be true with many players. I like it, and want to keep it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It's not so much a play as it is a tactic. I saw it in a YouTube video, but it's probably mentioned elsewhere; the UA stuff is written as "super cool" and/or overpowered on purpose.
It's so that the abilities sound fun to play (so that people will give play testing a shot) and they said it was easier to start OP and scale the power down rather than the other way around.
Gnome Armorist - Artificer Subclass Homebrew
Sometimes I wonder if they just said that to get people off their tail. Astral Self Monk was so OP that it wasn't interesting to me.
Some things they never seem to balance at all, even once they get to be RAW, like Alchemist, so on.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Thing is, once people know that this whole "make it crazy awesome and nerf the shit out of it in post" thing is Wizards' game plan, it removes any and all real interest in UA from anything but an academic standpoint. What that says to me is that no DM should ever allow UA in their game unless they're homebrewing monsters and disregarding encounter math already, and also you should never get attached to anything that hits in UA.
We all saw that with the Alchemist artificer and the artificer in general, and it's why I just sorta find myself rolling my eyes and mostly ignoring this unceasing awful riptide deluge of weird, janky, overpowered and underdeveloped subclasses. Seriously. It's just not fun anymore, and nobody and nothing can "playtest" these things when there's a brand new set clamoring for your attention every thirteen seconds.
Please do not contact or message me.
i wouldn't be too concerned about the armorer getting their missing limbs back i mean its literally 50 gp to get a magic common item that does the same thing Prosthetic Limb. that DOES require you to attune to it but at low lvl's you really shouldn't have enough magic items to do that. but honestly i personally have never seen a game where someone lost a limb to start. but i like the idea of using it on a lvl 3 or higher character as part of there backstory; im actually playing one right now started off with 1 arm, 1 hand , a foot up to the knee and a eye removed as he was born into a warrior culture as an invalid with shriveled limbs and blind in one eye. imagine playing a char parallelized from the waist down dreams of walking again seeing the world but he stuck bound to his home; then with time and study he begins tinkering and making wonder's to fulfill that dream.
or you could sacrifice your arm for knowledge odin style
Is there actually a mechanic for losing limbs? I dont know if I've ever seen it.
yup its one of those optional rule if im not mistaken
I use injuries, but not often.
Otherwise, I use the Prosthetic Limb for NPCs that want to seem tough.
I do think they make to many Unearthed Arcana for anyone to seriously playtest it, but it is handy to let the community know what you're working on and contribute, whether or not the feedback is helpful. It helps for players and DMs to find the broken combinations in UA before they're published, so they can fix them.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
well its important to remember that not everyone will be interested in any given sub class so diversity isnt going to be the issue.
LeviRocks
does the ring of spell refueling specifically state only the artificer can use it? If it does. I missed where it said that.
it just says the pre-requisite to doing it is a 6th level artificer. It doesn’t say the artificer has to be the one using the ring.
As to:
”The Helm of Awareness doesn't invalidate Alert, it makes it better for players that want to have as high an initiative as possible. Alert gives you a +5 to initiative, the Helm of Awareness gives you advantage. It makes you better at why you took Alert in the first place.”
having advantage is the same as having a +5 per the PhB.
and since the rest of alert users redundant to this...
it completely invalidates alert. — I would like it more if it didn’t give the advantage but gave the other stuff. Or only gave the advantage. I dunno. I just don’t think feats should be invalidated completely otherwise why are the feats even there if they are almost completely useless. We all know THOSE feats...
Blank
Anyone that is attuned to it can use the ring, the Artificer will just ultimately get the most mileage out of it. I think basing it off of the number of items is a nice balancing act, it essentially allows an Artificer to create a scaled back version of a Pearl of Power.
Subscribe to our channel for character builds, roleplay and DM tips: www.youtube.com/c/dorkforge
Interested in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything? Check out our playlist on Youtube
Please feel free to message us with any requests or build challenges!
Yes nothing says you are ignoring it, like commenting on how terrible it WILL be. Yeah, armorer is going to be nerfed, I’m just glad they are trying new ideas.
Nobody play tests anything. If you actually run a poll most (almost everyone who responds) people will tell you that their games do not allow UA materials. For example, I put out two separate polls inquiring about the Pact of the Talisman. Only one person who responded to either poll admitted to actually trying it out, but I got at least a half-dozen responses from people whose “DM’s don’t allow UA,” but most of them could tell me why it sucked.
If nobody allows UA in their campaigns then people are giving their feedback to WotC blindly. WotC is then taking all of that info, and tweaking/not tweaking the UA materials based on that untested feedback. Then they release it, and all of a sudden people are complaining about the “officially published” versions and half of them end up wishing that things were more like the UA. Case in point, the Alchemist.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Ring of Spell Refueling:
While anyone can use the ring of spell refueling only casters with spell slots get any benefit from it, the maximum level spell slot that can be recovered for any class other than an artificer is 3rd level since the the general maximum number of attuned items is 3 basically the equivalent to a pearl of power, only artificers can attune to up to 6 magic items and even then it depends on the level of the artificer and unless an artificer is multiclassing they only get 5th level spell slots.
So:
Non-caster: No benefit as they have no spell slots to recover.
Non-Artificer caster: Can at most recover a 3rd level spell slot (equal to a pearl of power)
Artificer: Can at most recover a 5th level spell slot (requires a 17 levels of artificer to get 5th level spell slots)
Artificer-Multiclass: Can at most recover a 6th level spell slot. (requires at least 18 levels of artificer to be able to attune to a 6th magic item)
Artificers get the best value out of a spell refueling ring.
A. For spell refueling ring, for artificer it is an extra spell slot, for literally anybody else it is an additional 3rd level spell slot.
B. Artificers have been able to "recreate limbs" since level 2 with the prosthetic limb infusion. If your DM is removing limbs from your characters and applying a mechanical penalty, without giving you the option or ability to get around that penalty, chances are your DM is an *******.
C. Succeeding on concentration checks, while useful, is nowhere near as good as reliable talent. Yes, it can come in handy, but only if you are making them already. It is a feature. It is not an overpowered one.
D. A tenth level feature "replacing" a feat is an absolutely reasonable feature. Feats, mostly, are not that powerful (barring a few exceptions).
There's some vague wording in the Armorer document that I'm not sure what to make of, specifically the Guardian weapons.
It says that "each" fist is a weapon that deals 1d8 etc etc, though logically you're only ever going to swing with one. What if you have the Dual Wielder feat, though? Losing the "light" requirement technically means you could dual wield Guardian fists, and since you have two... I mean, at low levels the temp HP bonus action doesn't do a whole lot anyway, so you may as well come out swinging with an offhand weapon.
The other thing is, with the weapons being integrated, how does it impact holding other objects? Could I hold a greataxe, and at 5th level swing it once and thunderpunch once for the tanking effect? Or, with the Infiltrator armor, could I use the chest-mounted beam in the same turn as a heavy crossbow I hold in two hands, to maximize potential damage output (since the Infiltrator weapon does an extra 1d6 once per turn max)?
A lot of these could probably be DM-fiat but it seems weird to me that this level of ambiguity exists outside of like, SCAG.
The Dual Wielder feat would work and be advantageous since it would give you potentially another enemy to draw aggro from. You likely wouldn't need the bonus hp every turn so you could just mix and match thp and offhand attack as needed.
It's described as your fists counting as simple weapons, like how a Tabaxi has claws, so it wound't hinder your ability to hold things and you can mix attacks (with Extra Attack) as you please. There's no conflict between the chest mounted beam and a heavy crossbow, though you don't have to actually hold the cross bow in two hands unless you're shooting it so you could use a fist mounted one too (though I see no benefit to not just using the chest one all the time).
I don't see this as ambiguity (for one it's playtest documentation that hasn't seen an editor) but also with the way 5e rules work it seems pretty straightforward, they're simple melee weapons, why would you treat them any differently than a couple maces? If there's no text saying to treat them any differently, then just treat them as normal.
Subscribe to our channel for character builds, roleplay and DM tips: www.youtube.com/c/dorkforge
Interested in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything? Check out our playlist on Youtube
Please feel free to message us with any requests or build challenges!
Ah I see it now. I was misreading it as it restored any spell a lot a number of times equal to how many items they were attuned to.
i got no problem with how it ACTUALLY is. In that you restore 1 spell slot, equal to the number of magic items you are attuned to (1-6).
Blank
I have Played with many DMs who have allowed it. And have actually play tested tester things I comment on. I track both my before take and my “after playtest” take on things. So I can see how my view myself changed too, and I include that in my feedback.
Blank
It's fine. You just read it wrong, and was trying to let you know how it actually works. Only one spell slot once a day, level of the slot equal to the amount of magic items they are attuned to, so maximum of 6th level for Artificer Multiclass. It isn't broken, just handy. The way you thought it worked, definitely broken, and wouldn't allow it. Anyone can attune to it, but certain people get better use of it than others.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Advantage doesn't equal a +5. It is a similar statistical increase, but not the same thing. Any player I know would love to have one of these rings if it gave them advantage on initiative, and they already had alert. Sure, they don't get full advantage of both magic items, but they do stack, and makes them even better at initiative.
Maybe you don't like it because certain parts of it invalidate certain parts of Alert, but that may not be true with many players. I like it, and want to keep it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms