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.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I always assumed that was the point of being able to summon a bunch of beasts. They weren't supposed to fight.

Nope I only ever saw them used in combat, where they clogged everything up.

I hated those spells so much, glad they are being replaced.

 

[Mistwell]

How they're not passing this off as 5.5, or even 6e, is the biggest joke of these playtests entirely.

Again how is this not 6th Edition? I'd love to see the argument in that one LOL

We calling this 6th Edition yet or what?

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

Are you still pretending you're not here to troll?

 

[Minigiant]

Nope I only ever saw them used in combat, where they clogged everything up.

I hated those spells so much, glad they are being replaced.

I doubt that was the point.

But people only see things in combat terms. Of course people would think low hp animals would be combat troops.

 

[mellored]

I doubt that was the point.

But people only see things in combat terms. Of course people would think low hp animals would be combat troops.

It was more that getting 8 attacks, even with a slightly lower to-hit, delt serious damage.

And even if an enemy could kill in one hit, that's absorbed 8 attacks from the enemy. (As long as they don't fireball).

You could also throw them into 8 traps.

That said. Other than multiple mounts, I don't see how a single creature couldn't do the same utility stuff.

 

[darjr]

I do see how the current summon spells can be a pain. I didn't mind.

I will say though that these spells go to far. someone above said it, they are not even summon spells really, could just be "Fire Cube!" or something. Bleh.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

Will use, has been using... Hi, I', Nobody. I killed a Cyclops. Jean Grey was angry.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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

You are confusing "rhetorical" with "a joke, noone laughs about but me".

 

[dalisprime]

Ugh I hate the new conjure spells. I would rather it be limited to summoning a single creature with a template.

You have single creature summons in the Summon spells from Tasha. These conjure spells are a major improvement over vanilla which were either completely broken or nigh on useless depending on DM fiat and always time consuming during a fight.

 

[Parmandur]

Will use, has been using... Hi, I', Nobody. I killed a Cyclops. Jean Grey was angry.

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

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".

 

[tetrasodium]

This is 5e...

Sure.

But that has nothing to do with fixing Conjure Animals.

I mean, I agree it's pretty round about way to do it. But it is getting fixed.

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