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.

 

[Mistwell]

There are more than WoTC covered under the pronoun "we". In this instance I meant "We, the Experienced Dungeon Masters who discuss proper adventure design to offer guidance to less experienced Dungeon Masters". Or are you saying you have never once heard the advice that progress through an adventure should not be gated behind a single check? Because, if you haven't, I have about a dozen creators I should point you to.

Strength challenges like those I described are not gated behind ONLY a strength check or else you cannot continue. If, as you say, you're an experienced DM, then you knew that. They are, like the other checks described, just more of a pain in the butt to surpass with other means.

 

[Yaarel]

I would prefer the game lean into how it was originally talked about by Mearls and Crawford, that in the right circumstances you can make an Intelligence (Deception) check, or a Strength (Intimidation) check, etc.. That seems to have been de-emphasized over time. I liked it, and I think it should be used more often.

I support a skill using whatever appropriate ability, such as Intelligence (Athletics) for sports science or sports history.

Even so, the "parkour" stunts need to be a single ability to invest in. Strength (Athletics) needs to cover every body stunt.

It isnt right to require investing in both abilities Strength and Dexterity, especially when one makes the other dumpable.

The 2024 rules must fix this deep problem.

 

[Mistwell]

The 2024 rules must fix this deep problem.

They mustn't and they won't

 

[Yaarel]

They mustn't and they won't

Requiring both Strength and Dexterity to do a simple stunt is PAINFUL.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And yet Encumbrance does not work this way. It is not a group check. Very, very often climbing and swimming checks are not group checks. The very way we approach discussing strength in the game is about how to punish characters who choose to not have a high strength, but never about rewards for high strength characters. Their reward is avoiding the punishment we enact on the others.

We constantly have somone carrying other's burden.

Sure, but this misses the point. The high strength characters are the easiest to replace, out of combat, because the only way we can make them useful to the party is to punish the party for not having them. Compare to other attributes, and it is far easier to make those set up to offer boons and new paths to the party, instead of penalizing them.

In your games probably.

 

[Pauln6]

Opening doors and moving obstacles are pretty fundamental to dungeon exploration. Perception and Stealth are probably more useful more often but wasting spells or alerting the entire dungeon because nobody is strong enough to force a door is very depressing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Strength challenges like those I described are not gated behind ONLY a strength check or else you cannot continue. If, as you say, you're an experienced DM, then you knew that. They are, like the other checks described, just more of a pain in the butt to surpass with other means.

And where in this post, referencing Adventures published by WoTC that I have not run, did you state that?

In official WOTC adventures there seems to be multiple challenges that only a high strength character can surpass barring very strong magic. A lid of something, a portcullis, a slab door, something always seems to be in the way that requires a high strength character.

Are you simply referring to "very strong magic"? I admit that is a second way past these obstacles, but what would you then do for an all rogue party? You spoke vaguely here, and if there were details that were left out, then perhaps it would have been helpful to describe the challenges more clearly so that the examples were not so easily misunderstood.

 

[Chaosmancer]

We constantly have somone carrying other's burden.

So the high strength character becomes the party's pack mule? And that is how they envision their character? I hope I don't have to explain to you why that is not an appealing part of the fantasy of playing someone like Grettir the Strong, ghost puncher and outlaw from the Saga of Grettir of the Icelandic Sagas.

In your games probably.

And you have told me nothing of your games to make me think yours are any different, other than smug assertions that you are too clever and skilled a DM to allow that to happen. Give some concrete examples then, instead of just accusations that the people pointing this out must obviously be doing it wrong.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Opening doors and moving obstacles are pretty fundamental to dungeon exploration. Perception and Stealth are probably more useful more often but wasting spells or alerting the entire dungeon because nobody is strong enough to force a door is very depressing.

Is it? Let us say that we have a dungeon, and we find a stone door. None of us are strong enough to lift it. Is there no other option? Well... no. We do have another option. Take a pick or a hammer and break it. Now, you will say you have alerted the whole dungeon by doing this... but less so than if you lifted a stone slab, while it ground against other stone?

And, let us take the more common scenario. Not a heavy or sealed door, but a locked door, with enemies on the other side. The means at which you avoid alerting the entire dungeon in this case is not being strong enough to rip the door from its hinges, it is using lockpicks to unlock the door.

Strength is often the loud option. You need strength to lift a portcullis because it rusted shut. That isn't quiet. You need strength to knock a stone pillar over a ravine. That isn't quiet. And given enough time and determination, even "weak" parties will be able to get past those obstacles, because even with a -1 to the damage, 2d6 is going to eventually deal 23 damage to something, which breaks most medium sized objects in the DMG.

 

[Mistwell]

And where in this post, referencing Adventures published by WoTC that I have not run, did you state that?

The use of very strong magic. You can blow those things up with magic. Spellcasters would prefer to not expend that spell slot though.

Are you simply referring to "very strong magic"? I admit that is a second way past these obstacles, but what would you then do for an all rogue party?

That's a hypothetical I've never seen or worried about and the game has never broken down that I am aware of due to this hypothetical problem, never seen it on this board or Reddit or FB or anywhere else with people saying this happened, so yeah I don't think the game needs to solve a problem that doesn't exist.