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]

Dex-based fighters

When I'm discussing, I am not prepared to at every juncture list all the options. Doesn't mean I overlook them. Only that "strength fighter dex thief" is a good easy shorthand.

So yes, they absolutely exist, with good support. (Which I like because it means I can tie Strength to masculinity in my Sword & Sorcery games without closing the door to female warriors, but I digress)

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Just don't make your decisions based on those of other groups.

One group may well dump and get away with it, but another will face a DM that asks their players to choose: if they want to use their own smarts in place of their characters, they must use their own strength too. No cherrypicking character physical strengths but player mental strengths.

It is not an universal rule you get away with dumping Strength. Or Intelligence.

 

[CapnZapp]

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

Yes casters suck at athletics and acrobatics. Nobody expects otherwise.

That's not the same problem.

One problem is "everybody expects me to be able to do this, but getting there means putting points in an ability basically for this reason alone, when ability points usually give so much more."

Another problem is "nobody expects me to be able to do this (without magic), so I guess I'm screwed when I do get into those situations with noone to bail me out and when I'm out of spells, since I certainly won't spend ability points on going from trash to mediocre when I could use them much better elsewhere."

The first problem isn't solved by "you totally need to waste those points just to not weirdly suck at specific things even though you're generally a physical person". It is solved by "you don't need to waste those points; we obviously patch the inflexibility with an easy houserule".

The second problem doesn't need solving. Casters being vulnerable when caught in a situation where their magic doesn't help but physical prowess does is a feature, not a bug. (Or play a gish)

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 is totally reasonable to gamesmaster in a skill-first approach, rather than an ability-first approach.

If a DM asks for an Investigation check, but allows you to add Charisma instead of Intelligence to the roll because you focus on talking to the witnesses rather than look for clues, that's completely normal and in no way an aberration.

Likewise, if you want to go with a task-based approach, where you're open to using one out of several skills to do the job, that's completely fine and reasonable too. An acrobatic person might run up the walls using different objects (and even people) as stepping stones, while an athletic person might heave himself up using brute strength. Same with lots of exploration or social challenges.

Don't try to sell the primary approach taken by D&D as the One True Way, that's just ridiculous.

I completely disagree that Sleight of Hand and Dancing (or other skills, for that matter) should be rolled into "Acrobatics".

Yes, the way D&D has chosen to bundle all of the Swim and Jump skills into a single Athletics skill is the only reasonable approach a rpg could take. While at the same time, it would be totally unreasonable to do the same bundling with Acrobatics.

Obviously you only need one strength-based skill while you must have three dexterity-based skills. That's just the way real life works.

No other approach would make sense and every other rpg except D&D 5E is flat out wrong.

/sarcasm

 

[Pauln6]

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

It's not a punishment, it's a choice.

Is your character strong or not? If not, then don't put points into strength. If s/he is, put points into strength. But don't complain that the game punishes you for not putting points into strength.

If you are complaining that strength doesn't give you enough to choose it but then complain than your low strength character can't perform feats of strength, you are actually saying strength does give something worthwhile.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

Point is, they are never equal. They have strength in different areas. Dex based fighters are bad at initiating grapples, pushes and trips. They are less able to switch between ranged and melee if they also want to use a shield. They are worse at utilizing improvised weapons or fighting unarmed. Dex based fighters make up for this with their own advantages.
But that does not make them equal.

They are not better, not worse, they are different.

You asked someone else to point out misunderstandings, so I think I should clarify:

You seem to believe character strength is on a linear scale, so that one build must be better than one other.
Characters however are multidimensional. Atteibutes alone make them 6 dimensional.
Of course you can use some metric to compare them linearly. But even then, you can have characters with different attributes having the same linear "value". But this metric is not something that is fixed. You can have different metrics for the same 6-dimensional space.
Your metric probably is derived from your own experience and the adventures you use. But others can have different metrices.

And my objection is just that even using a metric and someone else usong a different one does not make the other one wrong.
I just point out, that some metrics just don't value one dimension and thus seem to be incomplete to me.

If you see character stats as points in a 6 dimensional space, sonetimes putting points in dex and str can give a better "value" using the metric derived from your experience.

 

[Pauln6]

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.

My current group has dumped intelligence and they suck at research. It makes life harder for them, and for me, when I have to limit the information I give them. It would be easier for us all if just ignored that and fed them the maximum info but I feel that somewhere out there is a character who may one day have higher than Int 14 (the fighter/rogue/warlock) and train in research skills. It's all about choices.

There are other ways around it such as intimidation, tricking npcs, or speak with the dead, legend lore, divination etc but none of that changes the fact that intelligent characters can be fun. I started binge watching Shadow Hunters where almost all the characters seem to have relatively low intelligence, and I think I would prefer to play someone smarter!

There are some players who want to play those characters so it feels unfair to say that other players who are concerned more with combat bonuses and bang for their buck should steal the toys of those players who are happy to play with the trade-off.

I do think that the backgrounds should be used more liberally to grant broad brush bonuses in appropriate ways and story benefits without rolling.

A sailor could be treated as trained in navigation, swimming, ship repairs, weather prediction etc without reference to specific skills or treat background training like tool proficiency to give advantage if you also have the skill.

 

[James Gasik]

My current group has dumped intelligence and they suck at research. It makes life harder for them, and for me, when I have to limit the information I give them. It would be easier for us all if just ignored that and fed them the maximum info but I feel that somewhere out there is a character who may one day have higher than Int 14 (the fighter/rogue/warlock) and train in research skills. It's all about choices.

There are other ways around it such as intimidation, tricking npcs, or speak with the dead, legend lore, divination etc but none of that changes the fact that intelligent characters can be fun. I started binge watching Shadow Hunters where almost all the characters seem to have relatively low intelligence, and I think I would prefer to play someone smarter!

There are some players who want to play those characters so it feels unfair to say that other players who are concerned more with combat bonuses and bang for their buck should steal the toys of those players who are happy to play with the trade-off.

I do think that the backgrounds should be used more liberally to grant broad brush bonuses in appropriate ways and story benefits without rolling.

A sailor could be treated as trained in navigation, swimming, ship repairs, weather prediction etc without reference to specific skills or treat background training like tool proficiency to give advantage if you also have the skill.

Ok now, I was called out for saying a 12 was a dump stat. How is a 14 a dump stat?

 

[tetrasodium]

Ok now, I was called out for saying a 12 was a dump stat. How is a 14 a dump stat?

I think it was the and in "higher than Int 14 ... and train in research skills. "one or the other alone shouldn't meet the bar. Unfortunately 5e's design of ultra devalued intelligence attribute combined with an awful skill system crushed under bounded accuracy suggests to players that it should be. That pretty much ensures players will avoid doing both when you add in the way simplifications make any consequences of not knowing into generally toothless problems or problems the party probably couldn't meaningfully prepare for.

 

[Mistwell]

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

Not so. If you're hyper focused on one type of combat then sure. But those strength points still help with carrying capacity, athletics, initiating a grapple, strength saves, heavy armor use, and most of the best martial weapons. Particularly if you find a magic weapon that uses strength, it's rewarded even if you have a high dex. The high dex still helps with initiative and acrobatics and ranged attacks and dex saves.

 

[Mistwell]

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

They assume rolled stats. That's the default, and I've never heard any designer claim otherwise. Have you?