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.

​

 

[Micah Sweet]

Personally, I don't think WotC is lying. I'm not sure that there's a lot of people who think WotC is deliberately lying. But I think there's likely going to be unintentional traps and disparities or OP choices, because WotC isn't that great at balancing things and including the necessary information, so that the the source books will be not as compatible with the other not-edition as WotC thinks that they're going to be.

Yeah, anything I've said suggesting deliberate bad faith deception is an overstatement on my part, and I apologize for that. I do allow my resentment of WotC's design direction to overtake my reason sometimes. I do agree with @Faolyn however that they are apparently ignorant of how much their fans analyze what they release, and as a result take a much more casual public attitude toward these questions than many of us here. That doesn't make either them or us wrong, but it does mean we're unlikely to see eye to eye.

 

[HammerMan]

Sharing your experiences does not require harping on every potential issue and insisting that they mean the finished product won’t be compatible and thus the game designers are lying about compatibility.

I am not harping. This is the first time I brought this issue here because when I said we ran into several you wanted an example.
It is unfair to both ask for examples then when provided the examples claim the other poster is “harping” on it.

This is hyperbole by way of false dichotomy. Discussing potential issues is distinct from harping on every last little potential sticky wicket until other people are getting tired of even discussing any of it as a result.

You asked for the example.

 

[Umbran]

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

Mod Note:
Don't make it personal.

nah, it’s the zealots of one side

Don't make it personal.

...this neverending barrage of futile postings is annoying...

I will help - you will no longer be part of this discussion to be annoyed by it.

A couple people are now gone from the discussion. Try hard to not be the next person removed, folks.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Mod Note:
Then maybe don't take part?

Nobody is required to take part in every argument they feel invited to.

 

[Velderan]

Oh man it’s good you’re here to tell me what is and isn’t clear at my table. Can you see the future too or just other peoples tables? Or are you just double down on pretending people pointing out issues are liers or at least dismissing them?!?

Except in 2014 that target always kept it and had the choice of when to spend it. Now the bard uses a reaction when a roll is made.
So by the new rules who gets to use it the target creature or the bard?

About 1/3 of my table agreed with you. (Including me if it matters) but about 1/3 (including the bard player)said no that bards don’t give inspiration to use when ever they use there reaction to grant it to rolls they choose now.
The final group (including the DM) said it was confusing and could go either way.

After being called dumb and even out right a lier in the warlock thread I didn’t bring this up on here just so I can be called those things again.

Nobody said it was broken they said it doesn’t work as written. It is “broken” not in the too powerful version but broken in the “not working as intended” way.

I didn't call you dumb or a liar, so let's try to dial back the response a bit and stick to what's actually being said. I don't care if someone did in the past, there's moderators to handle that. Can we try to have a civil conversation please?

I said it was clear because the language on who keeps the inspiration die is in the text in a pretty straightforward wording. It doesn't even interchange different words to refer to the recipient either, just "creature".

Your inspiring words are so persuasive that others feel driven to succeed. When a creature adds one of your Bardic Inspiration dice to its ability check, attack roll, or saving throw and the roll fails, the creature can keep the Bardic Inspiration die.

It refers to a creature adding your Bardic Inspiration die to its roll, then says the creature can keep it if their roll fails. Again, nothing in the 2024 UA packet contradicts the who in that 2020 subclass. Now what is missing is how long and what condition would trigger the creature to be able to use your Bardic Inspiration die again and that's absolutely something the 2024 book needs to have a way to resolve without requiring a player to crack open the 2014 book to see a Bardic Inspiration die last 10 minutes. I think we both agree there?

 

[James Gasik]

The only issue I can see is people who jump on board with the 2024 books and therefore don't own 2014 books, and want to DM for something like an AL game or some other public play venue. And even then, the old rules are easily found on the internet.

Anywhere a DM has total authority, however, they can simply say "no 2014" if they feel it's a problem.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The only issue I can see is people who jump on board with the 2024 books and therefore don't own 2014 books, and want to DM for something like an AL game or some other public play venue. And even then, the old rules are easily found on the internet.

Anywhere a DM has total authority, however, they can simply say "no 2014" if they feel it's a problem.

They can of course also say "no 2024" with the same degree of problem/non-problem.

 

[Velderan]

The only really odd interaction I found for the Bard, was the College of Creation and how it substantiated Inspiration dice. Bit that still works, just...differently than originally intended.

The dancing item that gets created? Yeah, if inspiration is only usable on a reaction they'd need to tweak that so the dancing item can be commanded on the same reaction instead of bonus action I guess? Again, some wording tweaks for the 2024 bard would be needed if they're going to stick with it only being used on a reaction.

 

[Parmandur]

The dancing item that gets created? Yeah, if inspiration is only usable on a reaction they'd need to tweak that so the dancing item can be commanded on the same reaction instead of bonus action I guess? Again, some wording tweaks for the 2024 bard would be needed if they're going to stick with it only being used on a reaction.

Yeah, it's nothing thst can't be resolved, I was really impressed when the second packet came out that it was the only quirky interaction I could find putting the Noldor Subclasses on the new Bard.

 

[Velderan]

The only issue I can see is people who jump on board with the 2024 books and therefore don't own 2014 books, and want to DM for something like an AL game or some other public play venue. And even then, the old rules are easily found on the internet.

Anywhere a DM has total authority, however, they can simply say "no 2014" if they feel it's a problem.

They can of course also say "no 2024" with the same degree of problem/non-problem.

That should be a perfectly normal conversation before starting any TTRPG: what books are we using?

I wouldn't automatically assume a DM running a game I'm joining wants material from Tasha's being used anymore than I'd expect them to be willing to mix PHB classes from 2014/2024.