Unearthed Arcana 11/4

[Luccan]

I really believe a handful more Sorcery points and 5-7 more spells known would solve most of the sorcerer's problems. It can stand on its own to some degree already, it's just a bit weaker and less flexible because of the pointless limitation on its spells known. Sorcerers should know as many or more spells than a bard given they have a natural access to magic and the only reason they don't is because WotC doesn't like sorcerers. No need to reinvent the wheel on this one, just give them more spells.

[Sindeloke]

I really believe a handful more Sorcery points and 5-7 more spells known would solve most of the sorcerer's problems. It can stand on its own to some degree already, it's just a bit weaker and less flexible because of the pointless limitation on its spells known. Sorcerers should know as many or more spells than a bard given they have a natural access to magic and the only reason they don't is because WotC doesn't like sorcerers. No need to reinvent the wheel on this one, just give them more spells.

That makes them balanced, but it doesn't solve the issue of "why not just play a wizard then." They're still not doing anything the wizard or bard doesn't do better.

If the idea of the sorc is "they don't need a lot of different spells, because they can do a lot with any single spell," as sort of a match to the fighter's "they don't need a bunch of different combat actions, because they can do a lot with basic attacks," metamagic needs to be way more extensive and versatile. Every metamagic should be at least equal to the wizard specialist version (Careful Spell should give allies immunity instead of just save success, etc), every sorc should get more metamagic options and points, and metamagic should be able to change the shape, damage type, or targeted save of a spell or let spells with "choose your effect" use multiple effects. I don't need fireball and lightning bolt if I can turn fireball into lightning bolt. I don't need disguise self and minor illusion if I can turn minor illusion into disguise self. I don't need web and hold person if I can turn web into hold person. I don't think a list of a few free thematic spells is a problem but I can't agree that it's actually a solution either.

[Luccan]

That makes them balanced, but it doesn't solve the issue of "why not just play a wizard then." They're still not doing anything the wizard or bard doesn't do better.

If the idea of the sorc is "they don't need a lot of different spells, because they can do a lot with any single spell," as sort of a match to the fighter's "they don't need a bunch of different combat actions, because they can do a lot with basic attacks," metamagic needs to be way more extensive and versatile. Every metamagic should be at least equal to the wizard specialist version (Careful Spell should give allies immunity instead of just save success, etc), every sorc should get more metamagic options and points, and metamagic should be able to change the shape, damage type, or targeted save of a spell or let spells with "choose your effect" use multiple effects. I don't need fireball and lightning bolt if I can turn fireball into lightning bolt. I don't need disguise self and minor illusion if I can turn minor illusion into disguise self. I don't need web and hold person if I can turn web into hold person. I don't think a list of a few free thematic spells is a problem but I can't agree that it's actually a solution either.

You play it for the Metamagic, which is why I said they need more Sorcery points. More metamagic options would be nice, too, I didn't think to mention it but you're right.

I think you could approach a few things as you suggest (Careful Spell probably should work as well as Sculpt Spell), but where and how you do it is important. Minor Illusion as Disguise Self, for instance. How do you implement that? Something like web to hold person could work, because an area/mulit-target spell reduced to a single person is basically the inverse of Twin Spell. Although... can't you kind of already do that with Careful Spell? You'll be able to select up to five creatures that automatically make their save... Of course it's still difficult terrain, but this is the problem with trying to make one spell into another. How do you do it exactly? What is the "make this spell behave like another" wording on an ability or new metamagic option that actually functions in a consistent way? Because it seems you're trying to avoid handing the Sorcerer "just" an extra set of thematic spells.

Edit: better word choice

[ezekielraiden]

The reason I'm iffy is that, well, caster omnicompetence is already bad. The wizard and cleric's ability to go "oh, give me a day and I'll change all my abilities to suit whatever we're doing, no big" is extremely limiting for the design of other classes, and puts huge restrictions on spell design and encounter design that end up hurting pretty much everyone else as collateral. So I'm a bit wary of going "well, we can just give a smaller dose of the problem to everyone else".

You know, for a while I've been thinking of redesigning the Sorcerer to work more like the Mystic, with a bunch of thematic packages that include both bread'n'butter and niche stuff, to let Sorcerers have more known spells and give them some niche "useful twice an adventure" things without just having everyone shifting from "all sorcerers have the same 7 super useful known spells" to "all sorcerers have the same super useful 12 known spells".

Worth seconding, this will be troublesome from a dev point of view going forward.

Honestly, being able to change one single spell a day really, truly isn't that game-breaking. It just isn't. A Sorcerer was already being put in a position of choosing spells that were as universally useful as possible, meaning spells for which there were few or no situations that they weren't competent. In other words? Sorcerers were punished for choosing NOT to be omnicompetent, and instead choosing niche picks.

Having this ability doesn't suddenly make Sorcerers have access to their entire list. Even without any limit besides "swap out one spell per day," it takes a Sorcerer of even moderate level a full week to change her entire loadout. And if your needs somehow change and one of your previous swaps becomes sub-par again? You take that much longer. And that's for a merely 6th-level Sorcerer, we're not even talking high levels here!

I completely agree that magic doesn't need major boosts in comparison to non-magic, quite the opposite. But this? This is mere QoL. It means Sorcerers can try out obscure niche spells that AREN'T universal omnitools, decide they don't like them, and try something else instead. It gives them the ability to make mistakes and correct them. That should mean there are more days in which the Sorcerer doesn't have the perfect tool already in hand, because he's trying out a new tool and damn if only he'd swapped out sleep instead of knock this time! Etc.

Again, I am the LEAST pro-caster person you'll hear on this, I found 5e's retreat from 4e's genuine balance deeply infuriating. But this specific thing is not going to make omnicompetent Bards and Sorcerers. Especially since you can't swap spells of different levels.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

Of course, as i said way back on page 2 QoL is good and i’ve allowed it for a long tome before this UA, even being disappointed that metamagic still can’t be changed around like almost everything else can now.

What I mean is that this is an extra thing for people that make homebrew and campaigns to account for, now potentially all casters can prep the right spell for the job given some time rather than about half of them. The root problem of how spell lists works still exists, its just a permutation of that to deal with when making content.

[Jerrykhor]

Yeah the sorcerer swap spell on long rest would really solve some awkward problems like spell redundancy. I remember getting a Staff of Defense on my Sorcerer, which grants Mage Armor and Shield by spending charges. It was a good item except, you guessed it, I already had those spells as my spells known. I was the only caster in the party, so no one else could use it either.

[bendking]

I find myself really wishing they gave Sorcerer a bit more. It definitely feels like it didn't get as much as some other classes, nor enough in general.
Other than that, I find Ranger to be quite a compelling dip with these changes, especially to Favored Foe, and especially for a Monk.
Oh boy, Hunter's Mark for free a few times a day, stacked with the amount of attacks a Monk already puts out? That's a great dip.

[diplomancer]

I find myself really wishing they gave Sorcerer a bit more. It definitely feels like it didn't get as much as some other classes, nor enough in general.
Other than that, I find Ranger to be quite a compelling dip with these changes, especially to Favored Foe, and especially for a Monk.
Oh boy, Hunter's Mark for free a few times a day, stacked with the amount of attacks a Monk already puts out? That's a great dip.

Crawford said that they usually don't balance UA with multi-classing, but that they (usually-I'm looking at you, Hexblade) do so before publishing.

That particular feature will probably be changed somehow before publication, precisely for that reason.

[dreast]

Doesn’t hunter’s mark apply only to weapon attacks? Aren’t fists unarmed attacks? I find the interaction of tireless and frenzied barbarian even more compelling, myself.

[Arkhios]

Doesn’t hunter’s mark apply only to weapon attacks? Aren’t fists unarmed attacks? I find the interaction of tireless and frenzied barbarian even more compelling, myself.

Unarmed Strike is a bit of an oddball.

Unarmed strike is not an attack with a weapon, but it is a weapon attack. I know, it's weird. But that's RAW.

By RAW, Hunter's Mark says: "you deal an extra 1d6 damage to the target whenever you hit it with a weapon attack". Thus, an Unarmed Strike qualifies for the extra damage.

[Willie the Duck]

I find myself really wishing they gave Sorcerer a bit more. It definitely feels like it didn't get as much as some other classes, nor enough in general.
Other than that, I find Ranger to be quite a compelling dip with these changes, especially to Favored Foe, and especially for a Monk.
Oh boy, Hunter's Mark for free a few times a day, stacked with the amount of attacks a Monk already puts out? That's a great dip.

It is definitely compelling. For the upcoming Baldur's Gate Campaign, I am considering playing a Horizon Walker (thematic to a plane-hopping adventure). It is frustrating that they still don't have a huge number of reasons to advance past level 5 or so (7 for Gloom Stalkers), particularly if you then go into Druid and get much of the same mid-high level spells, but not appreciatively moreso than paladins not dipping into other cha-based classes after 6-7.

[jaappleton]

It is definitely compelling. For the upcoming Baldur's Gate Campaign, I am considering playing a Horizon Walker (thematic to a plane-hopping adventure). It is frustrating that they still don't have a huge number of reasons to advance past level 5 or so (7 for Gloom Stalkers), particularly if you then go into Druid and get much of the same mid-high level spells, but not appreciatively moreso than paladins not dipping into other cha-based classes after 6-7.

Gloom 11 is pretty sweet, but I absolutely agree. Ranger archetypes, especially the newer ones, are way too bonus-action focused. I already have plans for my bonus action, WOTC, its called Crossbow Expert!

Ranger / Cleric is particularly appealing to me, for the obvious synergy.

[Segev]

Maybe if Spell Versatility replaced all other benefits of a long rest? So a Warlock or Sorcerer who is swapping out a spell doesn't regain hp, doesn't regain long rest features, etc.?

This would ... not help if they hadn't been cost anything the day before, I guess. Hrm.

[Sindeloke]

but where and how you do it is important. Minor Illusion as Disguise Self, for instance. How do you implement that? Something like web to hold person could work, because an area/mulit-target spell reduced to a single person is basically the inverse of Twin Spell. Although... can't you kind of already do that with Careful Spell? You'll be able to select up to five creatures that automatically make their save... Of course it's still difficult terrain, but this is the problem with trying to make one spell into another. How do you do it exactly? What is the "make this spell behave like another" wording on an ability or new metamagic option that actually functions in a consistent way? Because it seems you're trying to avoid handing the Sorcerer "just" an extra set of thematic spells.

I'm not sure exactly - it's a thorny problem, which is why we pay game devs to work on it for us. But Web -> Hold Person could involve making some kind of Star Wars-esque hierarchy of imposed conditions and letting metamagic upgrade them (restrained becomes paralyzed, paralyzed becomes stunned, whatever). Minor Illusion -> Disguise Self could involve a metamagic that allows otherwise static concentration spells to be moved (so you can just get inside your own illusion and move with it).

Unarmed strike is not an attack with a weapon, but it is a weapon attack. I know, it's weird. But that's RAW.

For three entire editions now I have been completely baffled that they do not just make "unarmed strike" a natural weapon available to all humanoids. Just get rid of automatic natural weapon proficiency (which is stupid anyway for other reasons) and say you're only proficient with your natural humanoid slam if you have martial weapon or monk proficiency. It solves so many problems and makes things so much simpler and yet in 5e, the KISS edition, we still have this inane "weapon-not-a-weapon" nonsense.

[ProsecutorGodot]

For three entire editions now I have been completely baffled that they do not just make "unarmed strike" a natural weapon available to all humanoids. Just get rid of automatic natural weapon proficiency (which is stupid anyway for other reasons) and say you're only proficient with your natural humanoid slam if you have martial weapon or monk proficiency. It solves so many problems and makes things so much simpler and yet in 5e, the KISS edition, we still have this inane "weapon-not-a-weapon" nonsense.

If it's not a spell attack, it's a weapon attack (improvised weapons follow unique rules). If it's not made with a weapon (which unarmed strikes no longer are after the very early errata) then it's not an attack with a weapon.

It's silly because of the terminology used (weapon-not-a-weapon) but is surprisingly simple to suss out when you learn the terms. Adding in extra game terms and proficiencies to track would make it less simple.

There's also the part where you're changing unarmed strike to "natural weapon" meaning that now it's actually labeled as a weapon, with an added proficiency to boot when the design intent is that things relying on a weapon present aren't allowed with those unarmed strikes (smite good, TWF bad). You'll notice that racial bonuses that grant natural weapons all specify they are used to make unarmed strikes for this reason.

I'd say it only creates more problems.

[MaxWilson]

If it's not a spell attack, it's a weapon attack (improvised weapons follow unique rules). If it's not made with a weapon (which unarmed strikes no longer are after the very early errata) then it's not an attack with a weapon.

It's silly because of the terminology used (weapon-not-a-weapon) but is surprisingly simple to suss out when you learn the terms. Adding in extra game terms and proficiencies to track would make it less simple.

They should have just called them physical attacks instead of weapon attacks. Then physical attacks with/without a weapon are just a subset of physical attacks.

[samcifer]

I've played both sorcs and wizards and one thing sorcs get that wizards don't is reliable usage of the bonus action. When I play a wiz I really miss the ability to do something else as a BA.

[ProsecutorGodot]

They should have just called them physical attacks instead of weapon attacks. Then physical attacks with/without a weapon are just a subset of physical attacks.

A much better solution, can't think of any glaring issues off the top of my head.

[Damon_Tor]

They should have just called them physical attacks instead of weapon attacks. Then physical attacks with/without a weapon are just a subset of physical attacks.

Is a spell attack that does s/l/b damage a "physical attack"? Those are the physical damage types, after all.

The better solution is just to accept that the "unarmed attack" is a natural weapon and to better integrate natural weapons into the rules.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Is a spell attack that does s/l/b damage a "physical attack"? Those are the physical damage types, after all.

The better solution is just to accept that the "unarmed attack" is a natural weapon and to better integrate natural weapons into the rules.

That's not really important, there are many spells that deal s/l/b damage just as there are ways to have physical attacks deal elemental damage. Your damage type has nothing to do with what kind of attack you're making. It was one of my first thoughts (Shadow Blade specifically came to mind) but I decided that it was an unnecessary argument to make.

And again, adding new rules is generally more problematic in keeping things simple than renaming them is. Changing the term to "physical" attacks doesn't create any glaring need for a new rule to be added and helps mitigate the issue of confusion associated with "weapon attack" not being "an attack with a weapon"

The distinction becomes "physical attack" and "an attack with a weapon".

Bringing up Smite and TWF again since these two features frequently argue on whether unarmed strikes are legal:

Divine Smite
Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee physical attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the attack’s damage. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend, to a maximum of 6d8.

Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.

If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

There's no longer any ambiguity. Your unarmed strikes are melee physical attacks but are not considered weapons.

[Damon_Tor]

I just don't think "physical" is the best word here. As you note, there are non-physical weapon attacks too. "Martial Attack" might be a better choice.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I just don't think "physical" is the best word here. As you note, there are non-physical weapon attacks too. "Martial Attack" might be a better choice.

Physical is something you have associated with Bludgeoning, Piercing and Slashing. No game term describes them as such, they fall under the broad group of damage types right next to all those elemental types.

If we were to choose "Martial Attack" then that overlaps with an existing game term "Martial Weapons" something we're actively trying to avoid.

[malachi]

I have a solution that won't cause any problems. Looking at Synonyms for PHYSICAL, I see our perfect solution: SOMATIC.

We want a term that applies to both melee and ranged attacks made with or without weapons, but want it to not apply to spell attacks. So what about "non-spell attack"? It may sound a little clunky, but at least it's intuitive. Divine Smite, for instance, would say "... when you hit a creature with a melee non-spell attack..." or "... when you hit a creature with a non-spell melee attack..." (the second sounds better to my ear).

[Damon_Tor]

Physical is something you have associated with Bludgeoning, Piercing and Slashing. No game term describes them as such, they fall under the broad group of damage types right next to all those elemental types.

You would have to explain why hitting someone with an enchanted rock that deals bludgeoning damage isn't a physical attack, but hitting them with an illusionary sword that deals psychic damage is.

I agree in retrospect that martial was a poor suggestion, but I don't think physical is the right answer either.

[Foxhound438]

Honestly I think if we got like 1 or 2 more pickup options for Canny and the ability to change favored enemy through a day's study or something I wouldn't care if we don't get the free hunter's mark.

Free, non-conc spells is probably not quite a good design anyway, especially when it's such an obvious 1 level dip target. As is it's Hexblade's Curse all over again, which means that on top of any charisma build you ever post getting instant 5 replies of "be a lot cooler if you had 2 levels of hexblade", you wouldn't be able to post any wisdom build anywhere without getting the exact same comment except with ranger taking the role of butting in every time. Heck, there are probably going to be people posting about x levels of arteficer on all of your int builds too when that comes out, so it'd be nice to have one stat that we can build around without being bothered about splitting levels.

[Sindeloke]

There's also the part where you're changing unarmed strike to "natural weapon" meaning that now it's actually labeled as a weapon, with an added proficiency to boot when the design intent is that things relying on a weapon present aren't allowed with those unarmed strikes (smite good, TWF bad). You'll notice that racial bonuses that grant natural weapons all specify they are used to make unarmed strikes for this reason.

That's a feature, not a bug. Not being able to smite with your fists (or easily magic weapon them as a monk) is stupid.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You would have to explain why hitting someone with an enchanted rock that deals bludgeoning damage isn't a physical attack, but hitting them with an illusionary sword that deals psychic damage is.

I agree in retrospect that martial was a poor suggestion, but I don't think physical is the right answer either.

Again, you're mistakenly applying your idea of "physical" as applied to the narrative, the word physical here is purely meant for mechanical distinction. There's no need to explain how those two are different because narratively there is no real difference, the enemy is being struck. The difference is purely mechanical (and in many cases, arbitrary).

That's a feature, not a bug. Not being able to smite with your fists (or easily magic weapon them as a monk) is stupid.

Ignoring the obvious benefits, I'm more concerned with the claim that this is simpler and more concise, which I don't think that it is.

[Sindeloke]

Ignoring the obvious benefits, I'm more concerned with the claim that this is simpler and more concise, which I don't think that it is.

What's complicated about "this is a weapon just like any other weapon and works exactly like any other weapon"? We go from "an unarmed strike sometimes acts like a weapon and has these caveats and interacts with some spells and game actions like this and other spells or activities like that" to "this is exactly like a club or a longsword or a spear. If you know how those work you know how this works. Have fun." How is that not simpler and more concise? You need to add zero rules and description beyond putting it on the weapons table and moving on with your life.

[ProsecutorGodot]

What's complicated about "this is a weapon just like any other weapon and works exactly like any other weapon"? We go from "an unarmed strike sometimes acts like a weapon and has these caveats and interacts with some spells and game actions like this and other spells or activities like that" to "this is exactly like a club or a longsword or a spear. If you know how those work you know how this works. Have fun." How is that not simpler and more concise? You need to add zero rules and description beyond putting it on the weapons table and moving on with your life.

Enough problems were created by this in the past that one of the very first errata was removing it from the weapons table. They don't want your fists to be treated as weapons, RAW they aren't weapons. RAI and RAW agree on this, the best possible solution would be what fixes the ambiguity from words and also maintains that intent.

[Arkhios]

For three entire editions now I have been completely baffled that they do not just make "unarmed strike" a natural weapon available to all humanoids. Just get rid of automatic natural weapon proficiency (which is stupid anyway for other reasons) and say you're only proficient with your natural humanoid slam if you have martial weapon or monk proficiency. It solves so many problems and makes things so much simpler and yet in 5e, the KISS edition, we still have this inane "weapon-not-a-weapon" nonsense.

Just why would it need martial or monk proficiency?
Why couldn't a cleric, rogue, or wizard (or anyone similar) smack someone with their fists? Since it's by default a strength attack, they're not very good at it, but they still can kick or punch or even headbutt someone if they're so inclined.

Honestly, while I said it's weird in current edition, I'd like rephrase that: the distinction between "attack with a weapon" and "weapon attack" only seems weird, but it actually makes sense, if you bother to think about it.

It's not like you couldn't understand and remember the distinction. It's actually quite simple.

Not being a weapon means it's not a manufactured weapon.

In rule terms, an attack with a weapon always refers to using a weapon that has been created for that purpose. Your body parts have a different purpose, even though you can make an attack with any of them.

Making an attack in similar manner as you would do with a weapon is like making an attack with a weapon. In other words, a weapon-like attack. They've just dropped the "-like" suffix because it's redundant and unneccessary word clutter. But because unarmed strike isn't created artificially, it's clearly different from an actual weapon, and not a weapon per say.

Still, attacking with unarmed strike is very similar act compared to using a handheld object. It makes sense that it deals very little damage by default because bones and flesh are (usually) rather soft, and you risk hurting yourself as well (not a thing in the rules, but I believe it's one of the balancing factors for the low default damage). It takes (a lot of) practice to know how to hurt someone else more (and yourself less) with your own body parts.

Also, rules wise, Unarmed Strike is an exception of the general rule for weapon proficiency. Everyone is proficient with unarmed strikes, regardless of their class, race, or background.

(Contrary to the first printing of PHB, where Unarmed Strike was listed in the Weapons table; it wasn't supposed to be there and was removed in an errata and in later prints, and instead is now an universal attack option for everyone).