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.

 

[CapnZapp]

As an alternative, I suggest allowing higher starting stats.

You should know that the game's basic mechanics assume the starting array and breaks down with higher stats.

For instance, a Barbarian or Paladin that rolls for stats randomly and gets lucky will feel at least one level better than everybody else, or even more.

It's just unbalanced and you reach the cap of 20 too quickly; which translates as "too many free feats".

For some groups, none of this is a problem big enough to matter. So if you feel you need to be all-powerful, go for it.

But for more mechanically inclined groups; having weaknesses that other party members have to shore up for you, is definitely the intended way to play the game.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Now try playing a Sword & Sorcery adventure...!

There EVERYTHING can be surpassed by really high Strength...!

You would (or should) never find a Wall of Force you couldn't crack with your bare hands in a S&S campaign, for instance.
And there would not be a Hold Person you couldn't break free from using pure Strength.

On the other hand, if you see a glimpse of a beautiful damsel's derriere that in itself could count as having failed a Charm Person save, so... you're not omnipotent. You just fear the Sorceress herself more than any weak-ass monsters or puny magics she can conjure!

 

[Pauln6]

Exactly. You don't put points in Dex as a Fighter. You expect someone else (a Rogue, a Monk, etc) to do the specialized Dexterity stuff for you.

No point in me as the DM asking the Fighter to invest points in Dex when he already has everything he needs combat-wise from Strength, except some pesky but basic movement related stunts.

Likewise but in reverse for the Dex Rogue.

You don't need it for the group. You need it to feel competent without strange holes (a Rogue that can't jump or climb, for instance. Wut?) That you should get without paying much.

Being asked to invest attribute points is definitely paying too much.

Much better and easier and cleaner to simply consider Athletics and Acrobatics as two sides of the same coin; they're mostly interchangeable; they're mostly one skill: every time you need your body in a new place and position, you roll your Acroletics or Athlobatics

You could certainly use the alternate stat rules for some athletics checks but if you aren't prepared in put some investment in strength or expertise in athletics then I'm not sure that you should be rewarded.

I still struggle with the rather sterile builds you get with points buy. Maybe 4 + 2d6 is a better way to manage in 5e?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You could certainly use the alternate stat rules for some athletics checks but if you aren't prepared in put some investment in strength or expertise in athletics then I'm not sure that you should be rewarded.

I still struggle with the rather sterile builds you get with points buy. Maybe 4 + 2d6 is a better way to manage in 5e?

We use 4+3d6 drop lowest sometimes. That gives quite good characters. A bit higher stats than point buy, but a bit less predictable.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Like martials are so OP they "need" to be kneecapped by having to invest in all three Strength, Dexterity, Constitution... shakes head

No martial wants to put points in both Strength and Dexterity. You simply don't get enough in return. The overlap is considerable - but nigglingly enough, it isn't complete. You have your offense and defense settled already. And you're certainly not taking points in an ability score just to get one skill, and not even a skill in a completely new area (such as social or exploratory) - you'd be taking that skill mostly to patch up your already good physical movement skill... except for some weird gaps.

Putting points in Strength mostly to be able to... swim?
Putting points in Dexterity mostly to be able to... balance?

Nah.

No, the elegant solution is to allow a martial to use either Athletics or Acrobatics for most movement-related purposes. The basics. The climbing and swinging and jumping and somersaulting.

Then if you specialize in strength (=you actually take Athletics) you get the non-essential "showoff" stuff: bending bars, lifting gates.

If you specialize in dexterity (=you actually take Acrobatics) you get... not much more, but since you're likely a Rogue, you have skill points over to be able to do stuff related to physical movement that perhaps should have been included in Acrobatics (dancing, picking pockets) but for whatever reason are separate skills (Performance, Sleight of Hand)...

First, casters have the same problem as martials. If they don't invest in the ability in question, they are going to suck at it, and casters RARELY have the spells they need to overcome an obstacle prepared unless they knew about the obstacle ahead of time. And if they do, they would have use at least one appropriate spell slot, which is unavailable for future combat effectiveness that day. I also think people put too much on the idea that all casters are purely better than martials because some casters may have a potential non-physical workaround for an obstacle if they planned ahead. That's not the common reality or situation in my experience.

Also, for people in the back who say "roll an Acrobatics skill check," that isn't how it works. The mechanic is "roll an Ability check, and if the DM says certain one or more skills could apply to the check, the PC can apply their appropriate skill modifier for that check." Sure, some situations ask for either Strength or Dexterity checks if it makes sense for the challenge in question, but they should not be totally interchangeable.

It's when people start house-ruling things that stuff gets weird, like "you can't roll a particular ability check unless you are trained in X skill", or ratcheting up DCs for everyone because one person is good at it. Those aren't player-friendly house rules.

I completely disagree that Sleight of Hand and Dancing (or other skills, for that matter) should be rolled into "Acrobatics". Neither of them universally count as Acrobatics in any way shape or form. That instead sounds like someone wanting to get rid of "skills" altogether, and instead allowing the PC to become further proficient in all rolls for a particular Ability, like a Rogue just saying "I choose to become proficient in Dex and Wisdom checks, so I apply my PB to all such checks." That is too narrow of design. There is no granularity for spreading out actual skills. There are only 6 "skills" in that paradigm, and the number of "skills" a species or class can be proficient in has to be reduced, or it becomes too easy to become proficient in all Abilities.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I assumed you've read at least one or two WOTC adventures before commenting on it and didn't need every detail laid out for you to intelligently discuss this topic. If you were that lacking in knowledge of the subject matter you were jumping into, you could have asked or just not commented, rather than making assumptions and then getting upset nobody told you some basic level knowledge about the topic you decided to jump into.

But even then your clue was my saying they work basically like the other checks I mentioned, which were perception or diplomacy/intimidate/deception or knowledge skills or pretty much any other check based on a skill. If you somehow thought strength challenges were unique after I said they were not, that was on you and your biases.

I have read at least one WoTC adventure. I don't recall any strength challenges of note within it. I am familiar with a DC 30 door in The Storm King's Thunder, which I had not fully read but the door was part of other research.

But, instead of giving clues to someone, who you just admitted you knew was clearly misunderstanding your point? A more effective method of relaying information is to tell them. When you listed those other checks, I responded as I did to demonstrate that those checks are often NOT barriers to progression, in part because I have seen poorly designed dungeons and adventures that have attempted to make those as railroaded, single check, failure points of the adventure. I played in a game that stalled and the DM had to threaten the PCs with poison gas, all because of a failed Perception check.

And, seeing my response, which was essentially "No, these checks don't work like that" would have clearly indicated to you that your clue and hint were missed. Because that would be a rather silly response from me to explain how they are different if you expected me to say they were the same. And yet, after your clue you left to supposedly paternally guide me to correctly understanding you failed to achieve that result... you double down and still refused to be more clear, framing it as my fault for not having read enough of the adventures in question.

Conversations are two-way streets. Since you have clearly understood that I was misunderstanding you for days now, why not be more directly clear sooner, instead of wasting everyone's time?

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's almost like different abilities help out in different scenarios, so that the absence of one in a particular group doesn't automatically mean the end of the adventure? This is how the game is supposed to work, but strength can still often be very useful, blocking doors with furniture, moving statues, and pushing enemies off cliffs.

Pushing enemies off cliffs are combat. Barring the door is only done in a combat-context, but sure, if you are being chased by a powerful enemy and you manage to get into a room with furniture and can block that door with furniture, it can be useful to do so. But that seems to be a rather specific scenario. And, to what purpose are you moving statues? Interior decorating? I can think of a few reasons, barring doors, opening secret passages, puzzle solving, but since all those likely happen with a long time limit, ropes and teamwork can likely accomplish the task.

And, again, this traces back to the original point. When people discuss that strength can be dropped from a group's selection of abilities, it is instantly pushed back on with "well, give them a mandatory challenge or universal punishment [encumbrance] and teach them why that is a bad idea!" But... no one says that for any of the other stats. That is because the consequences of lacking those attributes are often self-obvious. The only other one that is generally accepted as being dumpable is intelligence, which both has one of the most powerful classes in the game, but also is again an obvious set of consequences.

And since it is so easy as to be self-evident that there must be other ways around a challenge that otherwise would require strength, the troubles that pursue strength as a skill category are only highlighted.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Exactly. You don't put points in Dex as a Fighter. You expect someone else (a Rogue, a Monk, etc) to do the specialized Dexterity stuff for you.

Just want to point out that Dex-based fighters are considered incredibly good. At their absolute worst, they are considered exactly equal with strength-based fighter builds.

 

[Mistwell]

I have read at least one WoTC adventure. I don't recall any strength challenges of note within it. I am familiar with a DC 30 door in The Storm King's Thunder, which I had not fully read but the door was part of other research.

But, instead of giving clues to someone, who you just admitted you knew was clearly misunderstanding your point? A more effective method of relaying information is to tell them. When you listed those other checks, I responded as I did to demonstrate that those checks are often NOT barriers to progression, in part because I have seen poorly designed dungeons and adventures that have attempted to make those as railroaded, single check, failure points of the adventure. I played in a game that stalled and the DM had to threaten the PCs with poison gas, all because of a failed Perception check.

And, seeing my response, which was essentially "No, these checks don't work like that" would have clearly indicated to you that your clue and hint were missed. Because that would be a rather silly response from me to explain how they are different if you expected me to say they were the same. And yet, after your clue you left to supposedly paternally guide me to correctly understanding you failed to achieve that result... you double down and still refused to be more clear, framing it as my fault for not having read enough of the adventures in question.

Conversations are two-way streets. Since you have clearly understood that I was misunderstanding you for days now, why not be more directly clear sooner, instead of wasting everyone's time?

OK fair enough. I didn't realize you were misunderstanding me at first but I can see now that's what was going on.

Here is an example strength challenge from Tomb of Annihilation:

PCs come down a hallway and see 3 holes are carved into a big stone door. Three zombie heads stick out of the holes, each gnashing on an iron bit bolted to a chain bridle.

They're chained to a pulley bolted to the ceiling on the other side of the door. The pulley is set up in such a way that when all three zombies move away from the door, they heave it open.

The zombies won’t move while they see you there. But if you can get them to move away from you, like from a turn attempt or otherwise, they raise the door as they move away from you.

The door weighs 1,000 pounds. Characters with a combined Strength score of 33 or more can lift the door. The zombies attack any creatures they can reach.

The PCs likely want to get into the room, and get back out later.

So lots of ways to deal with this encounter. The easiest method is to Turn the zombies with a Cleric or Paladin, then kill them on the other side, deal with the room, and then have 33 strength combined to open the door.

But if you don't have that kind of strength in the party (and there is only 10 feet space next to the door so I don't think you could easily fit lots of PCs to do it), you'll have to think of a different way. Using stealth. Using speed to deal with the room before the turn attempt ends. Using misty step (you can see through the door). Maybe there is something in the room to use the pulley system better and reduce the strength needed to lift or destroy or prop it up (there is a large chariot, a laser-zapping shield, a sarcophagus, some other stuff). Regardless, the intent of the room isn't to gotcha a group missing that strength - it's to cause them to think of a different way to deal with that door.

 

[CapnZapp]

if you aren't prepared in put some investment in strength or expertise in athletics then I'm not sure that you should be rewarded.

If you already have Dexterity, putting points in Strength is not a reward, it's a punishment.