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.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Huh. I think I'll stick with houseruling it to half for Small and half again for tiny, which is what I always thought it was!

Where this gets fishy is for small-sized armour wearers. I've no problem with small characters carrying less than medium ones, but proportionately sized armour isn't reckoned in the current rules. If armour were calculated apart from carrying capacity, this could work.

 

[Yaarel]

Where this gets fishy is for small-sized armour wearers. I've no problem with small characters carrying less than medium ones, but proportionately sized armour isn't reckoned in the current rules. If armour were calculated apart from carrying capacity, this could work.

In terms of carrying capacity, size seems more important than Strength.

For example, a Horse whether stronger or weaker will carry more than a Human whether stronger or weaker.


Actually, this principle is a benefit for Small and Tiny player characters. The amount of carrying capacity becomes "realistically" much less, but their high combat bonuses from high Strength can still apply.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Yes -- I think we agree?

 

[tetrasodium]

In terms of carrying capacity, size seems more important than Strength.

For example, a Horse whether stronger or weaker will carry more than a Human whether stronger or weaker.


Actually, this principle is a benefit for Small and Tiny player characters. The amount of carrying capacity becomes "realistically" much less, but their high combat bonuses from high Strength can still apply.

2e was too different for a solid comparison but at least in 3.x the carry capacity made sense because there were serious benefits to being size small. The only ones I can remember were a bonus to dex and the ability to use mounted combat stuff on a medium sized dog, but I feel like there were one or two more.

I don't think that there is enough justification for size small carry capacity changes in 5e if there aren't some notable changes to the benefits of that size though

 

[James Gasik]

2e was too different for a solid comparison but at least in 3.x the carry capacity made sense because there were serious benefits to being size small. The only ones I can remember were a bonus to dex and the ability to use mounted combat stuff on a medium sized dog, but I feel like there were one or two more.

I don't think that there is enough justification for size small carry capacity changes in 5e if there aren't some notable changes to the benefits of that size though

The advantage of Small size in 3.5 was as follows:

+1 to attack rolls.
+1 to AC.
+4 to Hide checks.

For this benefit, you had 3/4 the carry capacity (but most of your gear was 50% weight so this wasn't a big deal), had to use smaller weapons, and suffered when grappling or trying to Intimidate larger people (-4 on the checks in both cases).

I can understand 5e's desire to simplify all of that, but what we got was:

Disadvantage when using Heavy weapons.
No penalty to carry capacity, but your gear weighs the same as that used by big folk for...reasons.

There's some occasional side benefits like being able to squeeze into smaller areas or move through the spaces of larger creatures, but these tend to come up way less often than being unable to use a longbow or heavy crossbow effectively. And yet, lol, usually when this is brought up on this forum, you have several posters chiming in that size small should be penalized more, and there's no need to give it more advantages.

Then Monsters of the Multiverse has several races that are like "you can be Small or Medium if you want", as if these choices are 1:1 to each other.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Then Monsters of the Multiverse has several races that are like "you can be Small or Medium if you want", as if these choices are 1:1 to each other.

I have not seen this explained or discussed anywhere. Do you know why? The races for which it applies make no sense to me. In the playtest materials it's just human and tiefling.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I have not seen this explained or discussed anywhere. Do you know why? The races for which it applies make no sense to me. In the playtest materials it's just human and tiefling.

It's just stupid. Note also how humans can be Small, but dwarves cannot. If they're trying to account for child characters, surely every race has those.

 

[Parmandur]

I have not seen this explained or discussed anywhere. Do you know why? The races for which it applies make no sense to me. In the playtest materials it's just human and tiefling.

In the Monsters of the Multiverse/'24 approach, the difference between Medium and Small is basically a ribbon. The Monsters of the Multivers options that can be Small or Medium seem to fall into two categories:

1.) Planetouched, like Aasamir or Genasi, who can be of non-Human origin with a Planar connection (Call of the Netherdeep jas an Orcish Water Genasi NPC, for example). This means that a player can play a Genasi, or Tiefling with the new PHB options, who comes from any other origin, like Gnomes or Halflings.

2.) Anthropomorphic animals. They do this with a lot of the anthropomorphic here, but Tabaxi is a good primary example. The Monsters of the Multiverse flavor text for Tabaxi makes it clear that they can be any sort of feline, like a Lion or a Tiger person, not just a Leopard, and they specifically call out domestic cats as an option. So a player who wa to to be cute little Puss in Boots juat like in Shrek? A Small Tabaxi, no need for a new option.

Oddly enough, I think that 2nd one is why they added that to Humans: a shirt person can make a Human PC and be Small, without having to choose a Gnome or Halfling to represent themselves.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Where this gets fishy is for small-sized armour wearers. I've no problem with small characters carrying less than medium ones, but proportionately sized armour isn't reckoned in the current rules. If armour were calculated apart from carrying capacity, this could work.

Nah, the armor is also halved, so it works out to be the same % of their carrying capacity. This is probably why they don't bother with it - IMO - it should all work out proportionately. That said, they wind up interacting with the same world, so I'm still inclined to write down what they can lift/drag on their sheet as half, but not worry about their encumbrance unless they're carrying stuff other than their own gear.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

2.) So a player who wants to to be cute little Puss in Boots juat like in Shrek? A Small Tabaxi, no need for a new option.

This actually makes sense. I like that for the animal races.