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]

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

Yeah now we're getting silly. We're talking a 5% different there.

 

[Pauln6]

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

True, it's not really a dump stat for him. He was converted from being rolled in 3e when dump stats were less of a thing so int is his third highest stat same as strength. If built in 5e from scratch it might be different. But he's a rogue so hasn't really committed to any knowledge skills and the rest of the group is way dumber so I meant rather that the group as a whole had placed no focus into intelligence or intelligence skills.

 

[Pauln6]

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

Yeah I wonder if that leaves too high an average given that the new feats all add +1 to a stat now.

 

[Horwath]

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.

you can just increase the pool of point buy and keep the current 15 max.

32pts are more or less equal to probability of 4d6D1.

after a players "buys" 15,15,14 and adds ASI for 17,16,14, rest is just gravy.

add 10 pts for 37 point buy pool and array goes from 17,16,14,10,8,8 to 17,16,14,12,12,12.

primary 3 abilities will be the same and rest will just give some level of competence to the character.

 

[James Gasik]

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.

With 5e, this is the problem It's not just the ability score that matters, but also proficiency. Like imagine a character with all 18's (the impossible dream). As the game progresses, the lack of proficiency in skills and saves will matter a lot more than their raw ability scores.

A +4 on a clinch save or ability check is nice, but if DC's are scaled with the idea that someone is going to have +11 (or higher), it might not mean enough.

Also something strange I've noticed- the DC's for ability checks seem to scale a heck of a lot faster than AC or saving throws in 5e. I've seen DC 20 checks in published 1-4 adventures, but AC 20 is pretty rare, and I don't think anything CR 20 or less has a 20 save DC.

Does the game just automatically assume someone is using the Help action for every ability check?

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Okay, this is a pretty clever set up. But I would certainly not call this a strength challenge.

Yes, three characters with an 11 strength can force open the door, but the fact that for two characters it takes a 16 and a 17 or an 18 and a 15 makes that an unlikely combo. It feels to me more like it was designed to allow for players who just kill the zombies without finding a way to open the door properly to not be prevented entry.

I'm not saying it is a bad challenge by any means, this is a pretty great challenge, but the challenge seems to be designed with the expected answer being "how do you cleverly utilize the zombies" not "how do you utilize your strength". Because let us say that a group comes across this door, and they have a single character with a strength over 14... Well, unless that character has a 20 strength and the next highest is a 13, they are not going to be rewarded for having a high strength, because the door is explicitly too heavy for any single character to lift. You still need clever tactics, or multiple high strength characters, and so it doesn't feel like a challenge designed to reward that one level 4 barbarian with a strength of 18 in the group.

I'm not sure I'm getting across the difference very well, so I can try and re-explain if it isn't clear, but this just does not seem to be designed first and foremost to reward strength characters for having high strength.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I'm not expecting you to list every single option, but I think they are vitally important to this discussion to keep in mind. Out of the 13 classes, only one class truly relies on strength and nothing else. Barbarians. Both Paladins and Fighters are traditionally thought of as strength characters, but both also have completely viable options in Dexterity.

But when you flip the script and look at traditionally dex-based classes, like the Rogue, Ranger and Monk... really only the Ranger has any viability with strength, and it is a really rare build to see. Enough so that the first time I saw it, I doubted it could work.

And when you start looking at the casters, only the Cleric really has a strong argument for strength over dex, and it isn't a great argument, since most clerics only have medium armor.

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.

This has almost nothing to do with my actual point.

Yeah, sure, some DM out there may force their players into a lifting competition and an IQ test to force their fantasy characters to conform to their real-life bodies. But since that is stupid, I don't really give any credence to it. A character with an IQ of 10 is average. Most people are of average intelligence.

But my actual point is that if you have a group who all dumped intelligence, the group is very aware that they are planning a bunch of people who aren't very bright. The consequences of playing someone who isn't very bright, doesn't know a lot about the world, is pretty obvious. Many comedy games have been made on this premise. No DM starts including rules or challenges to specifically harm the characters for having low intelligence, because they expect plenty of challenges will come up naturally.

Dump strength meanwhile, and everyone immediately starts with Encumbrance and other rules designed to punish you for daring to have low strength. You start getting told about realism. You start getting all your treasure in copper coins so you can't possibly carry it all. I'm not saying you, Captain Zapp, person I am talking to, or anyone else in this thread actually does those things, but you go to a reddit thread and those suggestions come up consistently.

Low Intelligence? "Oh, these characters are a bunch of bone-heads who are going to make bad decisions"
Low Wisdom? "Oh, these guys are going to have low impulse control, and they won't be able to spot enemies or lies"
Low Charisma? "They will make everyone they talk to angry, they are going struggle with any socializing"
Low Con? "They are going to be sickly and have low hp, oh god what do I do?!"
Low Dex? "They are going to fail every stealth check ever, they will never be subtle."

Low Strength? "Okay, we ware going to impose these rules, and we are going to make sure to include heavy doors that they must lift, and alter the treasure to make them not be able to carry. We'll show these people why it is a bad idea, and that they should have made different decisions!"

It is weird. Every other stat is seen as just naturally flowing into issues, with no major need to correct those. Low Strength is seen as a problem the DM must correct, by punishing the players.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

What feats of strength? I have asked this before. We generically say "Feats of Strength" but what do we actually mean by this? What are these feats of strength?

 

[tetrasodium]

With 5e, this is the problem It's not just the ability score that matters, but also proficiency. Like imagine a character with all 18's (the impossible dream). As the game progresses, the lack of proficiency in skills and saves will matter a lot more than their raw ability scores.

A +4 on a clinch save or ability check is nice, but if DC's are scaled with the idea that someone is going to have +11 (or higher), it might not mean enough.

Also something strange I've noticed- the DC's for ability checks seem to scale a heck of a lot faster than AC or saving throws in 5e. I've seen DC 20 checks in published 1-4 adventures, but AC 20 is pretty rare, and I don't think anything CR 20 or less has a 20 save DC.

Does the game just automatically assume someone is using the Help action for every ability check?

I think that's obscured for a lot of players by having the DC ladder pegged to "very easy/ easy/ medium/ hard/ very hard/ nearly impossible" rather than something that grows with PC capabilities along with the fact that all trained/proficient skills scale at the same rate without ever needing to revisit if the player wants to go all in on a couple core skills where they excel due to continued focus or dabble in a bunch.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Most of what you listed doesn't matter. Worse at using improvised weapons? Who uses those in the first place?! Better at fighting unarmed? Who wants to do that other than a monk?! In both instances just having a boot knife and being able to do 1d4+dex mod is as good or superior to those options.

Switching between ranged and melee with a shield? Actually not that hard. Daggers can be thrown, slings and hand crossbows are one handed. If we move to looking at One DnD we have the 1d10 Pistol. Sure, the hand crossbow and Pistol have the loading property preventing multi-attack, but if we are just comparing to the Javelins and hand Axes, then daggers and slings are only a 1 pt difference. Meanwhile, in fully ranged builds, Dex is King, and the lack of a shield isn't usually a large detriment.

Which leaves initiating grapples, trips and pushes. And I'll be honest, those can be negatives, but I've seen someone play a strength based fighter who wanted to grapple a lot... and they would have been better off just attacking. Tripping is only really useful if you have a lot of melee fighters. Pushing is only really useful if you have hazardous terrain. The VAST majority of the time... people just make attack rolls. Yes, these things can be boons for the character who can do them, but if you want to BUILD for them... open hand monk? Battle Master Fighter? Both can use dex for these purposes.

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. Attributes 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 using 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, sometimes putting points in dex and str can give a better "value" using the metric derived from your experience.

Your clarification here does not make any sense to me. You seem to be saying that there are pros and cons to everything. Which yes, that is obvious. But you seem to think that I'm completely unaware of that. I am aware of there being cons to having a low strength. What I am pointing out is that, from my own perspective, the cons to low strength are incredibly mild compared to the cons of other scores. Yes, there are six attributes, but unless you roll dice and get high on all of them, you are FORCED to have lower scores in some attributes than others. You are FORCED to have cons based on a low score somewhere. So if you are weighing the pros and cons, and one set of cons is decidedly less severe... the other scores come out ahead.

Is this only from my own perspective? Of course it is. It is fundamentally impossible to speak from other people's perspectives in a complete manner. But I am also backing this up by looking at what other people have said in other places over my many years engaging digitally with the game, and from comparing those things to the systems and rules in the game. It is my perspective, but it is not arbitrary. And while I can accept other tables having other experiences, that does not mean necessarily that those experiences are more indicative of the average experience.