D&D (2024) New Unearthed Arcana Playtest Includes Barbarian, Druid, and Monk

The latest Unearthed Arcana playtest packet is now live with new barbarian, druid, and monk versions, as well as new spells and weapons, and a revised Ability Score Improvement feat.

Claim Unearthed Arcana now! - D&D Beyond

www.dndbeyond.com

​

WHATS INSIDE

Here are the new and revised elements in this article:

Classes. Three classes are here: Barbarian, Druid, and Monk. Each one includes one subclass: Path of the World Tree (Barbarian), Circle of the Moon (Druid), and Warrior of the Hand (Monk).

Spells. New and revised spells are included.

The following sections were introduced in a previous article and are provided here for reference:

Weapons. Weapon revisions are included.

Feats. This includes a revised version of Ability Score Improvement.

Rules Glossary. The rules glossary includes the few rules that have revised definitions in the playtest. In this document, any underlined term in the body text appears in the glossary.

 

[tetrasodium]

When you said they threw it in for the GM to fix, that implied to me that you find the system a challenge for you as a DM to fix.

No I implied that the system is "broken" due to the incomplete state that 5e's quest for simplicity & streamlining. As the last few pages demonstrate with excessive verbosity this problem caused by poorly established player expectations is not something that can be fixed by a GM until wotc takes action to rectify their own mistakes.

I was just saying, IMO, the whole game is about challenging the DM and players to collaborate in a way they all enjoy. So challenges for the DM to 'fix' are not bugs, but features.

What completely backwards thinking. One of the most apex responsibilities of the GM's role is for them to provide challenges & opposition for their players. Fighting completely foreseeable pitfalls absent any of the ways past editions avoided them on top of that is not a reasonable position

No game can please all of the people all of the time, so they keep it flexible enough for people to please themselves. We're all expressing our opinions on what works in our games in the hope of inspiring others to try the same and see if it works for them.

Pot meet kettle & glance in the mirror. We are multiple pages into a discussion where a handful of posters adamantly assert that the GM is not allowed to say no to a repeat check with such ferocity that they do not even accept that other posters assert that the GM could at a table that the first group almpt certainly does not & will never play in.

 

[Pauln6]

No I implied that the system is "broken" due to the incomplete state that 5e's quest for simplicity & streamlining. As the last few pages demonstrate with excessive verbosity this problem caused by poorly established player expectations is not something that can be fixed by a GM until wotc takes action to rectify their own mistakes.

What completely backwards thinking. One of the most apex responsibilities of the GM's role is for them to provide challenges & opposition for their players. Fighting completely foreseeable pitfalls absent any of the ways past editions avoided them on top of that is not a reasonable position

Pot meet kettle & glance in the mirror. We are multiple pages into a discussion where a handful of posters adamantly assert that the GM is not allowed to say no to a repeat check with such ferocity that they do not even accept that other posters assert that the GM could at a table that the first group almpt certainly does not & will never play in.

Lol. I wasn't one of the people telling you how to run your game. I was trying to explain my reasons for how I run my game. This isn't a skill challenge where there has to be a winner and a loser. We can both be right.

Or wrong.

Or maybe you just failed your first Persuasion check. ;-p

 

[Maxperson]

Lol. I wasn't one of the people telling you how to run your game. I was trying to explain my reasons for how I run my game. This isn't a skill challenge where there has to be a winner and a loser. We can both be right.

A fact that those on the side of rolling until you succeed don't seem to be willing to admit, despite the DMG very clearly leaving it to the DM to decide when it's impossible to re-roll.

 

[tetrasodium]

Lol. I wasn't one of the people telling you how to run your game. I was trying to explain my reasons for how I run my game. This isn't a skill challenge where there has to be a winner and a loser. We can both be right.

Or wrong.

Or maybe you just failed your first Persuasion check. ;-p

We are talking about the rules themselves that were published not how some people run their game vrs how other people run theirs.

 

[Pauln6]

We are talking about the rules themselves that were published not how some people run their game vrs how other people run theirs.

Such a dry exercise might merely be posturing for a sense of superiority, since the rules themselves only exist to serve the game of the players that are actually playing them. We can express our opinions on why we interpret them in a particular way but saying, "because that's how I interpret the RAW' shouldn't carry with it any kind of objective moral superiority. I like hearing people's reasons because it may turn out that I agree and might want to tweak my game, but there doesn't have to be a 'winner' in the debate.

I have never allowed multiclass fighters to cast two spells using action surge because IMO it was intended to make fighters awesome, not make wizards awesome. I have never allowed rogues to use cunning action to do 3 movement actions because IMO it was intended to make rogues tricksy, throwing things in their enemies' path when running away etc, not just running away really fast. I don't have to justify my reasons to anyone but some people might think, yeah, why didn't I think of that. Other people will just say, "You're doing it wrong. The RAW allow it".

Thanks, but I'm comfortable with my decisions! I am happy to listen though.

 

[tetrasodium]

Such a dry exercise might merely be posturing for a sense of superiority, since the rules themselves only exist to serve the game of the players that are actually playing them. We can express our opinions on why we interpret them in a particular way but saying, "because that's how I interpret the RAW' shouldn't carry with it any kind of objective moral superiority. I like hearing people's reasons because it may turn out that I agree and might want to tweak my game, but there doesn't have to be a 'winner' in the debate.

Now you are making things up, there's no RAW to support the GM not being able to deny a skill check or a retry of one. I'm getting whiplash from the shift you've made starting with if the gm doesn't like it then perhaps it's not the right game for them to maybe we can both be right subjectively on to maybe they are just interpreting RAW that doesn't exist differently.

I have never allowed multiclass fighters to cast two spells using action surge because IMO it was intended to make fighters awesome, not make wizards awesome. I have never allowed rogues to use cunning action to do 3 movement actions because IMO it was intended to make rogues tricksy, throwing things in their enemies' path when running away etc, not just running away really fast. I don't have to justify my reasons to anyone but some people might think, yeah, why didn't I think of that. Other people will just say, "You're doing it wrong. The RAW allow it".

Thanks, but I'm comfortable with my decisions! I am happy to listen though.

You might want to go back several pages to where this all started.

 

[Pauln6]

Now you are making things up, there's no RAW to support the GM not being able to deny a skill check or a retry of one. I'm getting whiplash from the shift you've made starting with if the gm doesn't like it then perhaps it's not the right game for them to maybe we can both be right subjectively on to maybe they are just interpreting RAW that doesn't exist differently.

You might want to go back several pages to where this all started.

It's midnight here and there are too many double negatives for me to keep track of - I'm not even sure which posters are on which side of the debate because when one spins out of control, I just skip to the end. My interpretation, for what that's worth, is that the DM can decide if a reroll is allowed or not. Said DM can decide that no re-rolls are allowed in their game at all and this is fine. Said DM can decide that re-rolls are always allowed in their game and this is fine. Said DM can decide, like me, that whether a re-roll should be allowed depends on whether my notes for that scenario say that a re-roll is allowed and/or the circumstances in which the re-roll (or entirely new roll if trying a different tactic) is being made, and that is fine.

As for re-reading the debate, I'm fairly sure that's a Persuasion check DC that is WAY above your bonus. Intimidation is an auto-fail. Deception might work but think fast. This one of those times where you only get one roll.

Your move...

I'm actually busy trying to stat up the Marauders (from X-Men) for a tournament game - currently on Riptide.