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.

​

 

[Velderan]

What about subclasses that reference old bard inspire? Or even just ones that don’t have enough sun class spaces?

They've said they'll do a final review once they've narrowed down the changes tested to what will actually go into the book and then publish some sort of guidance where compatible isn't 100% clear. Who knows how clear that guidance will be, but if it largely defaults to the DM making something up that's pretty much been 5e's thing all along so no concerns about being a new edition from me.

 

[DEFCON 1]

How many points do you get for insulting people by claiming they are going for points?

Eight.

 

[Remathilis]

How many points do you get for insulting people by claiming they are going for points?

How often are we going to debate whether WotC is lying about OneD&D being a stealth incompatible 6th edition? We've been debating since the announcement. We're five packets into the playtest. Do you really think at this point WotC is going to go "welp, you caught us. 6e is here and your 5e stuff will explode in the next 30 minutes. Buy the new books or die."?

Maybe if it wasn't the same people making the same arguments over and over like it's Groundhogs Day, I'd say there was some genuine confusion about the nature of the update. But at this point, it's purely rhetorical debate that collapses one-upsmanship with no one being convinced (or open to convincing) until the mod locks the thread.

 

[HammerMan]

How often are we going to debate whether WotC is lying about OneD&D being a stealth incompatible 6th edition?

That isn’t what I said.
I said they are riding the line trying to do both and as such failing at both. It has nothing to do with lying.
I guess it is being deceptive but it is being deseptive trying to have there cake and eat it too.

We've been debating since the announcement. We're five packets into the playtest. Do you really think at this point WotC is going to go "welp, you caught us. 6e is here and your 5e stuff will explode in the next 30 minutes. Buy the new books or die."?

Again making up some crazy argument and trying to pretend I am making it.

I would prefer if WoTC admited it was an edition break just more like 3e/3.5. However my main push here and else where is that we the fan base not argue over it being a break, just say it will be for some and not for others (again like 1/2e and 3/3.5/pf1) there are stories from someone I fear was bullied off here about useing 1e-4e stuff in a 5e multiverse game and I don’t think they were alone I think some others jumped in saying they did similar. The resistance of non 0 people that use everything doesn’t make everything supported.

Maybe if it wasn't the same people making the same arguments over and over like it's Groundhogs Day, I'd say there was some genuine confusion about the nature of the update. But at this point, it's purely rhetorical debate that collapses one-upsmanship with no one being convinced (or open to convincing) until the mod locks the thread.

Yet it is as much yourside throwing insults getting mods to lock threads. How much of this post alone is an attack on me and people who think like me instead of discussing the topic?

 

[Justice and Rule]

I'll be honest, I really cared less about how the idea of it being an edition change or not as much as I disagreed with the notion that it would be less confusing to not change. Apparently heels got dug on on the topic and everyone decided that it was suddenly a maximalist position of sorts (which I don't think I made it out to be).

But on the playtest, I think things have largely been okay. There have been things I disagree with (Ranger spells, Warlock direction), things I think need to be refined but are good (Druid), things that are just outright good (Cleric), and things that I think are just bad (Fighters and Weapon Masteries). I do think the overall conception of things like leveled feats are a big step forward for the design of the game and think that it will make it easier to add things to the game by gating more effective feats off at higher levels. If anything, the worst parts of the playtest have been the influence of events outside of the playtest, like the long delay we had early in the year for obvious reasons.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Funny how as many people think that the 2024 class or fear or spell is a replacement as think it is a new option you can use either and some (maybe not you) think it’s both depending on what makes the “it’s not a true edition break” argument better at the time.

Or, consider, some of us recognize that the main goal is compatibility and not making anyone’s library of 5e books useless with the new core books. That might mean they end up swinging one way when we expected another, but know the basic shape, and it is a revision that according to the latest video, will be usable alongside even the 2014 core books.

That was a surprise to me, but I have no issue with it, nor do I especially care about the distinctions you’re drawing in order to paint the “]other side” as contradictory.

What about subclasses that reference old bard inspire?

What about them? Literally the only relevant change is how many you have per long (and eventually short) rest. That will have no impact on compatibility.

Or even just ones that don’t have enough sun class spaces?

Idk why this needs answered again and again in every discussion.

Feats. The most likely rule is that if you run out of levels in your subclass, and your base class gives more subclass levels, you gain a bonus feat at the levels wherein the discrepancy lives.

I suspect we will have a better idea within the next few UA documents.

 

[HammerMan]

Or, consider, some of us recognize that the main goal is compatibility and not making anyone’s library of 5e books useless with the new core books.

If that is the goal they should not rewrite every class and every feat. So far we have 1 class with minimal difference (rogue) and one complete rewrite not at all compatible (warlock) and the others on the spectrum between them.

What about them? Literally the only relevant change is how many you have per long (and eventually short) rest. That will have no impact on compatibility.

Whether you can give them as a reaction or give them as a bonus action. Weather the reviving player can hold on to them or have to be used on the triggering roll

Idk why this needs answered again and again in every discussion.

Because it isn’t answered yet. You gave your idea how you would fix it. That isn’t an answer on how the game will be fixed.

Feats. The most likely rule is that if you run out of levels in your subclass, and your base class gives more subclass levels, you gain a bonus feat at the levels wherein the discrepancy lives.

I actually have not even seen this fix of yours most threads say “they will have advice when the book comes out” or “just move the levels and skip ones of you run out”

I suspect we will have a better idea within the next few UA documents.

Maybe but that sounds a lot like “shut up, we don’t want you to talk about the playtest unless we assume WoTC is going to be perfect later”

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

That was a surprise to me, but I have no issue with it, nor do I especially care about the distinctions you’re drawing in order to paint the “]other side” as contradictory.

the problem is the sides stopped being different thoughts and opinions of people and became some kind of religious zealot thing were people on both sides are hunting for heretics.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If that is the goal they should not rewrite every class and every feat. So far we have 1 class with minimal difference (rogue) and one complete rewrite not at all compatible (warlock) and the others on the spectrum between them.

The Warlock is compatible.

Whether you can give them as a reaction or give them as a bonus action. Weather the reviving player can hold on to them or have to be used on the triggering roll

None of that has any effect of a swords bard using them to flourish.

Because it isn’t answered yet. You gave your idea how you would fix it. That isn’t an answer on how the game will be fixed.

Yes, an example showing how trivially easy it is.

I actually have not even seen this fix of yours most threads say “they will have advice when the book comes out” or “just move the levels and skip ones of you run out”

Maybe but that sounds a lot like “shut up, we don’t want you to talk about the playtest unless we assume WoTC is going to be perfect later”

If it sounds that way, you’re adding that to the discussion, not me.

the problem is the sides stopped being different thoughts and opinions of people and became some kind of religious zealot thing were people on both sides are hunting for heretics.

I disagree, but that may be because I just block folks who get too annoying about it.

 

[HammerMan]

The Warlock is compatible.

Not with the 2014 warlock it isn’t.

None of that has any effect of a swords bard using them to flourish.

Okay. So you named one that doesn’t matter.

If it sounds that way, you’re adding that to the discussion, not me.

I disagree, but that may be because I just block folks who get too annoying about it.

Maybe you just don’t like people seeing things from a different point of view.