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]

At no point does the game state that "the default method is rolling,"

Thank you, but..

Rolling does, in fact, produce an average result

..sorry, this isn't how probability works.

In fact, very few characters generated through rolling will be average.

 

[CapnZapp]

In terms of ranking the value of each stat, I think this is highly dependent on the types of games that tables prefer. We are RP heavy, so wisdom, intelligence, charisma, and to a somewhat lesser extent dexterity are particularly valuable. In a more combat-heavy game, strength and constitution would shine more, though even in combat heavy games in our campaign I would rate strength as the least valuable stat.

This.

I would put dexterity, charisma and wisdom as the most valuable stats overall.

This I don't think anyone contests. You've named the three big saves, clearly valued higher than the strength, intelligence and charisma saves.

 

[CapnZapp]

That's where they balanced the game off - a range of 3 to 20.

No, that's obviously a non-statement.

The only way to read it would be to conclude they did not balance it at all, and I don't think that's your argument.

 

[CapnZapp]

I always wondered if removing Dexterity bonuses from weapon damage would be enough to rebalance the stats.

I really need to find that old post of mine, where I enumerated all the ways 5E have changed the D&D combat model compared to 3E.

People doesn't seem to realize how very many individually small tweaks there are, that in aggregate makes a huge shift from Strength to Dexterity.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Just to note: you're clearly having a beef, but your beef isn't my beef, and this, I feel, has nothing to do with me.

I'm arguing something simpler: that a classic Strength-based Fighter shouldn't need Dexterity and a Rogue shouldn't need Strength, not if all they want to do is run around the battlefield being the physical champions they are.

It's just too much overlap. You get so little out of it. The game already covers most of your bases (just one example: the game provides "armor" to a Strength-build so you don't need Dexterity for Armor Class).

I'm basically only straightening out the odd kink that is for a Dex build to be stopped cold by a rope they need to climb.

In a way with elves and dragons and magic and ship? Get outta here...

I do agree here to some extend. For many movement oriented things, acrobatocs should suffice. Because what is it good for if not for moving around?

But I can tell you: to climb woth foot and handholds, you really need a minimum strength. But then, you also need strength for acrobatics or pulling a bow.
So the question is: what actually is dex? Isn't it the ability to move fast and explosive and precise?

 

[CapnZapp]

I do agree here to some extend. For many movement oriented things, acrobatocs should suffice. Because what is it good for if not for moving around?

Thanks

But I can tell you: to climb woth foot and handholds, you really need a minimum strength.

Do you need Strength to wrestle a bear? A giant? A dragon? At what point can we agree we have left actual physical strength behind, you know the one generated by your muscles and chemical reactions and such... and instead entered the realm of pure awesomeness? Because otherwise it makes zero sense a hero should be able to... do anything to a creature whose muscles and limbs are twice, three or even ten times as thick.

Wrestling a dragon should then be like wrestling a tank or a battleship. Nothing you do has any effect whatsoever. You just become a red smear and the opponent didn't even notice you were there.

The game is fantasy; the notion D&D heroes should be able to take down gods but still be stopped by a... wall? is incomprehensible to me.

There's already the martial/caster divide. No need to further subdivide martials into mighty ones that can climb and puny ones that simply have to wait until their friends use magic or simply throw them up the cliff.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I really need to find that old post of mine, where I enumerated all the ways 5E have changed the D&D combat model compared to 3E.

People doesn't seem to realize how very many individually small tweaks there are, that in aggregate makes a huge shift from Strength to Dexterity.

I still don't see the shift. AD&D rated dexterity very high. Even for melee classes where str should be great, dexterity enable two weapon fighting and even added to AC quite early. While str only started late and then just gave you +1/+2, except for fighters, who had a 50% chance to only have +1/3... except for players who somehow always had at least +2/4 or +3/+6.

Weapon specialization and mastery was the bigger factor. And magic weapons. Only the start of your career was way easier with ogre like str.

So even if the asumption that dex is generally better than str holds true*, it held true forever and there was no real little shift.

*which I still don't agree with in that absolute form.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Thanks


Do you need Strength to wrestle a bear? A giant? A dragon? At what point can we agree we have left actual physical strength behind, you know the one generated by your muscles and chemical reactions and such... and instead entered the realm of pure awesomeness? Because otherwise it makes zero sense a hero should be able to... do anything to a creature whose muscles and limbs are twice, three or even ten times as thick.

Wrestling a dragon should then be like wrestling a tank or a battleship. Nothing you do has any effect whatsoever. You just become a red smear and the opponent didn't even notice you were there.

The game is fantasy; the notion D&D heroes should be able to take down gods but still be stopped by a... wall? is incomprehensible to me.

There's already the martial/caster divide. No need to further subdivide martials into mighty ones that can climb and puny ones that simply have to wait until their friends use magic or simply throw them up the cliff.

If you quoted/read the remainder of my post, you'd see that I agree with you that dexterity seems to have some real world strength built in. And I agree with you that 18, 20 or even 26 str is beyond real limits.

For what its worth, if you can swing from balcony to balcony instead of climbing up with pure strength, I'd readily allow dex(acrobatics).

I would not allow you to climb up an ice wall with it though.

 

[Mistwell]

No. What the designers claim are irrelevant.

Irrelevant to how those very designers balanced the game? Pretty relevant.

You can't base any balance on a system that gives you a 3 one day and an 18 the next.

You can. That's my entire point. Balance is overrated when the acceptable variation is much larger than people like to argue about.

Obviously we can't have a proper discussion under the assumption our stats are random.

Of course we can. Stats were entirely random for the first 25 years of the history of the game. They're often random now. And I have seen you have hundreds of discussions and I am very confident you could engage in a proper discussion under assumptions stats are random. You're underestimating yourself there. I have no doubt at all you could do it.

Otherwise you could legitimately argue "there's no problem because I have great Strength AND Dexterity - and I didn't have to sacrifice anything at all to get it!"

No because you have, as you called it, a proper discussion you'd have to say "there is no problem if both are high, but what if one or both are low?" Because a proper discussion assumes the range of outcomes and not just the maximum one.

I'm discussing under the assumption stats are standard array.

Yeah I can see that and nobody is going to stop you from doing that. I was just mentioning that's not how a lot of people play the game.

 

[Mistwell]

No, that's obviously a non-statement.

I don't even know what that means. It was a statement. It did convey an opinion or piece of information.

The only way to read it would be to conclude they did not balance it at all, and I don't think that's your argument.

They did balance it but with a much wider range of outcomes than the narrow one you're focused on.