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]

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.

Yeah, or provide some other benefit. In general, when a versatile weapon user switches from one-handed to two-handed it should mean they have gone from Defend/Utility Mode to Erase Obstacle Mode.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

On the other hand Topple really scales with that second attack; if you topple someone you get advantage on your next attack.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I want some mechanical difference between a longsword and a battle axe and was a little upset that that is not the case even after the new properties were added. Same for the war pick and morningstar being identical

I have a hard time imagining that "make all these weapons different" wasn't part of the original mandate. Maybe they just want several weapons just defined by cosmetic differences, but that feels like a cop-out.

 

[Yaarel]

The weapon property Versatile needs a straightforward boost. Namely, improve the weapon by two dice if using both hands.

• Longsword 1d8 (Versatile 1d12)



Personally I view the Katana as:

• Katana 1d6 (Versatile 1d10, Finesse)

And a normal Knighthly Arming Sword as without Versatile:

• Sword 1d8 (Finesse)



The simple bump makes it worthwhile to get a Versatile weapon for the tactical benefit of choosing whether to deal extra damage or else use the free hand for an other action such as Grapple.

 

[MarkB]

Personality

Golfbag Fighters is not to me the best representation of the core Fighter. Few warriors in fantasy and real life use a golfbag of weapons.

Most warriors use a preferred melee weapon and a preferred ranged weapon.

Ironically the Golfbag Warrior is Iconically the Monk and other Monk adjancents like Ninjas and Pugilists.

Fortunately the fighter's ability to swap out masteries will mitigate the need for carrying a varied load out.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

I disagree. You can’t remove anything low level from Hex without making it basically require blade pact, which should never be the case.



Sure, but it will still have to give you the ability to fight effectively with weapons as a warlock, so I’m just not convinced there actually is 70% to work with. More like 20%, at most, IMO.

I don’t think blade pact should give a bunch of proficiencies, or a special curse, and I don’t think the Hexblade can rely on blade pact to attack and damage with Cha, or to be able to stand in front and take hits.

Okay, maybe Hexblade without Blade Pact could attack with Dex or strength like everyone else, but then ppl will just cry that it’s MAD.

If we can find a way around these issues, then sure I’d love to see He blade lean into the curse mechanic (I’d prefer it be worded so that any “curse”, such as the hex or bane spells, gain the hexblade’s curse rider), and the wraith thing, and gaining THP or regaining HP when a cursed enemy dies, etc.

But I’d also love to see the entire class lean harder into the curse concept, with each Pact having its own twist on the curse, Hex be part of that class feature, and you are always hitting harder in some way against the creature you’ve cursed.

I think we're talking past each other a bit.

I don't think the Hexblade as a Patron option should be designed around the use of a weapon essentially at all. Because that's what the Pact of Blades is for.

The Hexblade as written is about gaining your powers through a sentient magic weapon, but that weapon is a manifestation of the power of an entity from the Shadowfell (The Raven Queen being given as an example). It's thematically no different than gaining your powers via a magical weapon from a Fiend patron, except it's been bundled up in one choice (that of Patron) rather than two (Patron and Pact) and the Fiend version is less effective despite requiring twice as many choices to be made. So they should cut out the middleman and turn Hexblade into a proper "Shadowfell entity" Patron (perhaps even giving it a different name, if necessary), and leave the decision of how that power manifests to the Pact choice like every other Patron does.

I just pulled the 70% number out of thin air, so don't read too much into the exact percentage. The underlying point I'm trying to make is that there's nothing in the core Hexblade's Curse ability that necessitates using a weapon attack to gain its effects - you can be just as effective with it by sniping with Eldritch Blast or another attack spell/cantrip. So if the weapon-focused aspects of the Hexblade were moved out to the baseline Pact of Blades, there's no reason that they couldn't then add in additional features that are similarly just as effective for every choice of Pact instead of just focusing on weapon-attack stuff.

The end result in my mind would be that those that like the current Hexblade could get something more or less identical to it by combining the revised Pact of Blades with the revised Hexblade (getting everything they had before, plus whatever is added to the revised version of the Hexblade Patron), while giving every other Patron a more solid weapon/melee-focused Pact and also giving every Pact of Chain/Tome/etc. Warlock a version of the Hexblade Patron that is effective without having a bunch of weapon-focused features bolted on.

 

[mamba]

The difference between a two-hand longsword and a flex longsword is that the two-hand longsword is strictly worse for the you can't use your offhand

so what, why should it not be strictly worse if you do not have the proper training / skill

 

[Minigiant]

Fortunately the fighter's ability to swap out masteries will mitigate the need for carrying a varied load out.

We have to see what level the fighter gets to swap or dual masteries.

If too early, it defeats the point.
If too late,it's makes fighters unrealistic for too long.

 

[Yaarel]

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...."

The freehand is for Grapple.

 

[Yaarel]

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.

Yeah. This is an important reallife historical fightingstyle. Either twohanded or use freehand for Grapple

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.

But make the Longsword itself useful. Then give the greatsword something meaningful, like Reach.

Longsword 1d8 (Versatile 1d12)

Greatsword 1d12 (Reach)