D&D (2024) Jeremy Crawford Gives an Overview of the New Unearthed Arcana

The upcoming Unearthed Arcana playtest packet for One D&D gets a preview from WotC's Jeremy Crawford. This is apparently the largest of these playtest packets so far, and the biggest Unearthed Arcana they have ever done, at 50 pages long.

It contains 5 classes, new spells, new feats, a revised rules glossary, and the new weapon mastery system.

​

 

[Incenjucar]

I understand what you're saying, but it's not like very much brain power was being used on "Should I two hand my battle-axe, or use a shield? Hmmm...."

I can't agree. I don't want to play a fighter who Just Hits Things - but there are plenty of people who do. And here's the weapon for Just Hitting Things. Yes it's dull, but some people want that.

And I'm trying to recall if I've ever seen anyone make use of the Versatile property.

That just tells me that versitile is already too bad at its job and needs a boost instead of being written out of the system.

 

[Yaarel]

Since WotC has committed to de-Orientalizing the Monk, this is very much not happening. In fact, I'd wager they holding back sp they can do a more targeted test of whatever changes they are making to remove Orientalism from the Class.

As far as Mastery, they said previously that the Monk's unique deal is getting Mastery for Simple Weapons, while fighters and Barbarians focus on Martial.

That is the ideal.

De-Orientalize the Monk so that it can function seemlessly in a Western or any other setting.

For example, the Theros setting is spot-on when using to the Monk class to represent the themes of the ancient Greek "Athlete".

Meanwhile, make it possible to use this "Athlete" to build a Shaolin Monk with historical or mythological accuracy. For example, the 5e Rogue class is excellent to build a historically accurate Japanese "Ninja".

 

[Parmandur]

Which is a terrible idea, unless they include the “pick a weapon to specialize in that isn’t normally a monk weapon” feature from Tasha’s and make it so you also “master” that weapon.

My impression from the creator summit stuff was not thar Monks cannot get Martial Mastery, but that Fighters and Barbarians don't get Simple Mastery to allow Monks to shine as masters of classic martial arts stuff like staves and clubs

 

[Parmandur]

A literally weaker version of the Dueling Fighting Style is amazing?

It's not a version, they stack.

 

[Minigiant]

That just tells me that versitile is already too bad at its job and needs a boost instead of being written out of the system.

Versatile really should be ~2 die up.

As is. Flex should be deal Versatile damage one handed and Versatile +2 damage two handed.

Weapon damage is too low with D&D's bag of HP design. style design as is.

 

[TerraDave]

So, martial cantrips. Martial cantrips are a good idea!

You could even call them martial at wills.

 

[TerraDave]

The fact the overview is FIGHTERS AND BARBARIANS (and also the three arcane classes) tells me there are probably no major changes coming to arcane casters.

Or we are getting another video soon.

And of course ninja’d

 

[I'm A Banana]

You could even call them martial at wills.

Heck yes you could.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

My objection is that it's a choice-erasing feature. It takes something that has a built-in meaningful choice and removes that choice.

I would say that Versatile isn't that meaningful, for reasons I mentioned previously. It's ok, but it's not a primary way to use a weapon. Most will use it one-handed, or instead use a heavy weapon in two hands.

The Flex mastery is simple, but it offers elegant results, in that it gives the Master the optional ability to redefine the Versatile keyword and (when utilized) lets the Master do something that nothing else in 5E does.

1. Only a Versatile Weapon Master can Flex to deal 1d10 base damage with a one-handed weapon, letting them use their off-hand for other things. This allows a shield-bearing warrior to deal more damage that their non-Master peers using the same weapon, dealing up to 2 more damage (more with a crit) that can drop an enemy faster.
2. If a higher-level Longsword Master wants to use a different Mastery effect, they can still use the basic Versatile aspect of the longsword. That is more versatility, not less.
3. It recaptures the essence of being proficient in exotic Bastard Swords and War Axes from older editions.

The most valid argument is that the damage increase is too small and boring. And I know that is subjective because I like how it scales with more attacks. Knocking a target prone with Topple can't be done again and again in the same round. But the extra damage from Flex adds up.

Heck, if there is a 1-handed weapon that can Topple, the Warrior can use both that, and a longsword, and use one of their attacks to knock their opponent prone, and get advantage with later attacks to deal Flex damage. You don't even need "two-weapon fighting" rules if you're not trying to eke out an extra attack.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That just tells me that versitile is already too bad at its job and needs a boost instead of being written out of the system.

The only time I've seen versatile used in practice in any edition was in games of 4e with a brawler fighter who would swing their sword two handed if they weren't using their other hand to put someone in a headlock. And that's the fundamental problem with Versatile as a concept; it shouldn't be as good as a two handed weapon when using the weapon two handed otherwise you make two handed weapons redundant. So in order to be good rather than a ribbon ability it needs to be combined with a fighting style where you sometimes hit two handed and sometimes take one hand off your weapon to do something else.

Which means that it's the lack of interesting fighting styles that's the reason Versatile's never used. You could do something with the Grappler feat to grab as a bonus action or something with throwing a weapon with your offhand at the cost of having to use your weapon one handed - or some sort of buckler which allows you to switch sword + board and two handed styles round to round. But in the absence of those versatile weapons are no better than non-versatile one handed weapons when used one handed, are worse than two handed weapons used two handed and there's no fighting style that fluidly switches between the two. It's a ribbon ability because there's basically no opportunity to use it.

And you could change Versatile (d10) to Versatile (d12) and it would change literally nothing - while if you changed it to Versatile (2d6) it would be strictly better than the greatsword. The problem isn't that versatile isn't good at its job; it's that the job isn't one any character actually wants doing.