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.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Can someone explain how this is NOT 6th Edition again? (Don't, that was rhetorical)

Mod Note:

Speaking of “don’t”, you were previously warned by another mod about your posts on this general topic. Apparently, you didn’t fully grasp that mod’s message.

So you’ve earned a short, involuntary vacation from ENWorld.

 

[Pauln6]

I like what they have done with barbarian and monk but I am worried that giving Barbarians and rogues their new tactical options AND weapon mastery is too much if all the fighter gets is weapon mastery. Take a leaf out of 1e Unearthed Arcana and keep weapon mastery as class features for fighters and rangers. Anybody else wants it, they can buy a limited version as a level 4 str/dex feat, maybe upgrading to a choice of two masteries at 8th level and three at 12th or something like that.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Nobody is going to use ".5" terminology without marketing pushing it.

Are you sure? Because the "3.5" came from the fans; WotC was calling them the 'Revised 3rd Edition' rulebooks when first announced in 2002, but "3.5" became so popular in the online discussion space that they decided to run with it.

 

[Parmandur]

Are you sure? Because the "3.5" came from the fans; WotC was calling them the 'Revised 3rd Edition' rulebooks when first announced in 2002, but "3.5" became so popular in the online discussion space that they decided to run with it.

And it would have stayed online if it wasn't printed on the books.

 

[mellored]

The "compatibility" problem you are raising is simply a poisonous level of strict RAW keeping the hypothetical gm (you?) From making monster adjustments to fit their needs or the trouble is a hypothetical player (you?) Who feels justified in browbeating their hm for modifying monsters to fit their needs. It's an outlook that 5e has done a lot to encourage but the poor choices that went into encouraging it amount to something other than a problem for compatibility

Or...
The DM doesn't have time to look up all the spells and decide what would be appropriate.

So they buy a book and go with whatever the stat block says.

Either way. No need to make Conjure Animals a terrible spell.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But why? The name 3.5 was only a silly gimmick in 2003.

Because it's not a full edition change, but still a major change that is going to supersede the original. Just like 3.5 and 4Essentials before it, I give it a year before the Point 0 version to be hedged out of the playspace. That's just how it works.

At smy rate, it isn't likely to catch on in general unless WotC markets it that way: we are now at the point where the target audience was not even born yet the last time any company called an RPG a "half edition".

Like how we all capitulated to their desire to just call this edition Dungeons and Dragons and '5e' never caught on? Or how we've all listened as they desperately try to assert that 5.5 is the end of editions?

 

[Kalashtar]

Me too. I hate hate hate hate the phrase "discipline points". It's so bland and generic.

If we can't call them "ki" any more, can we at least get a better name? Life points? Soul points?

Inner force points?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Technique Points, Focus Points, Martial Points.

I don't necessarily mind Disciple Points, but they sound like that sarcastic reply to what should we replace ki points with to make the Monk less ethnocentric.

 

[Parmandur]

Because it's not a full edition change, but still a major change that is going to supersede the original. Just like 3.5 and 4Essentials before it, I give it a year before the Point 0 version to be hedged out of the playspace. That's just how it works.


Like how we all capitulated to their desire to just call this edition Dungeons and Dragons and '5e' never caught on? Or how we've all listened as they desperately try to assert that 5.5 is the end of editions?

I mean, yes, 5E is often just called D&D in regular parlance.

I'm calling it D&D '24, b2cause that is unarguavly what it is.

 

[MockingBird]

I mean, yes, 5E is often just called D&D in regular parlance.

I'm calling it D&D '24, b2cause that is unarguavly what it is.

Same, D&D 24 is the best fit.