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.

 

[Pauln6]

I didn't.

You should try it. It's not ability dependent and it lets you swashbuckle without levels in the swashbuckler subclass. The main gap appears to be that while it adds 10 feet to the distance you can move, and it effectively lets you jump over obstacles in difficult terrain, it doesn't expressly add to the maximum distance you can jump. Similarly, the Athlete feat reduces run up but doesn't add to the distance, except in as much as it can add a point to strength.

So is the beef just that neither feat adds an actual mechanical bonus to jumping and climbing over and above training in athletics?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I read others'. You actually go a step farther an expliciteley tell me that my opinion is trash. So I can ask you the same questions. Why are YOU here?
So I engage with those that do actually listen.

How does multiple paragraphs, pointing out my disagreements with you, indicate that I did not listen to your point? You said that those things are advantages for strength, I pointed out why those things, which may be advantages, actually do not apply the majority of the time. I even pointed out misconceptions you seem to have about the ranged options available while holding a shield.

You never even bothered to read my reasonings or evidence though, so you have no idea about how they affect the bonuses you provided.

 

[Chaosmancer]

"You generate your character’s six ability scores randomly."

That's a statement of a default method.



You have to make assumptions to call "You generate your character’s six ability scores randomly" something other than a default method. What do you think "default" means if it doesn't mean standard and customary and pre-selected option unless you decide to make a different option?

I don't even use rolling most of the time so I don't know why you're making it personal. I am not arguing my preferences, I am reading what they plainly wrote in the PHB without further assumptions.




No really, it often doesn't. It does over thousands of rolls, but it does not generally over 6 rolls, which is what we're discussing. It's frankly absurd to call a random roll "producing average results" as that's not even the purpose of averages. The very word average is often implying something which varies so wildly you need to find a middle point to even discuss it.


Where did they reveal that?


Yes, obviously you can get a 20 with racial choices. That's what I mean. That's why they limited it to 20. That's where they balanced the game off - a range of 3 to 20.

It is not impossible to have two defaults.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Education gives no hard indication of how clever a player can be. That much is true.

You can play 4e if you want every stat to be equally relevant. You can't achieve that without stripping out quite a lot of flavour from the game. I prefer the classes and the way they synergise to be more variable.

A good DM always works to ensure that players choices remain relevant.

Life is not perfectly in balance nor is any version of DnD.

I ever so much enjoy that a discussion that started with "we shouldn't allow players to make these choices" has now brought up the ever popular dog whistle of "player choices should remain relevant". Oh, and we have "flavour" too.

Maybe no version of Dungeons and Dragons has figured out how to make multiple ability scores equally viable, but other games have. And currently, there is no "flavour" in the ability scores that we would desperately lose if we gave strength characters a few more ways to utilize strength WITHOUT penalizing everyone who currently sees little benefit to strength. And, secondary to the fact that strength is currently poorly implemented in the game, we can expand our definition of fantasy to include things that you may not like. You can allow player choices to be relevant WITHOUT penalizing players for making those choices.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not to you, perhaps. The stats are the blueprint that embody the mental image of my character. It matters to me whether their intelligence is 17 or 13 regardless of what bonus I get in any new edition. I appreciate that to many people it's all about what mechanical benefits the stats provide and that's fine for them. That's just not fine for me.

So no, no flavor was lost outside of a terrible argument that assumes ability scores weren't there for mechanical reasons in 3e somehow.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I always wondered if removing Dexterity bonuses from weapon damage would be enough to rebalance the stats. Most of rogues' damage comes from sneak attack anyway. You can add a flat bonus to crossbows based on size. It would make a fighter using light melee weapons less viable if they dump strength completely so you might need a patch for that.

I suspect that many people arguing that Dex is the uber-stat would prefer to see the other stats boosted rather than Dex nerfed.

Yes, because nerfing people for playing the character they want to play is a poor way to achieve balance instead of boosting people who are struggling.

And I know you don't believe strength characters are struggling, but since we STILL have not figured out anything non-combat strength could be used for that doesn't involve "move heavy thing blocking path" I think we are truly looking at a problem. And I don't think making strength mandatory for being effective in combat unless you are a spellcaster is going to make anything any better.

 

[Pauln6]

I ever so much enjoy that a discussion that started with "we shouldn't allow players to make these choices" has now brought up the ever popular dog whistle of "player choices should remain relevant". Oh, and we have "flavour" too.

Maybe no version of Dungeons and Dragons has figured out how to make multiple ability scores equally viable, but other games have. And currently, there is no "flavour" in the ability scores that we would desperately lose if we gave strength characters a few more ways to utilize strength WITHOUT penalizing everyone who currently sees little benefit to strength. And, secondary to the fact that strength is currently poorly implemented in the game, we can expand our definition of fantasy to include things that you may not like. You can allow player choices to be relevant WITHOUT penalizing players for making those choices.

There are multiple ways to get over Str20 that mess way more with the game than more flavourful uses for strength.

 

[Pauln6]

So no, no flavor was lost outside of a terrible argument that assumes ability scores weren't there for mechanical reasons in 3e somehow.

No flavour to YOU. It's a terrible argument to YOU. I've been playing the game for 41 years. It's fine if you want to think I've been playing wrong for all that time. But your argument isn't going to sway me any more than mine is going to sway you. The stats have meaning to me in addition to mechanical benefits. Int4 is ape intelligence to me. That informs the way that creature thinks. How it might react to certain spells or intimidation, coloured by its personality. I don't just roll a natural 20 and declare it's solved the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything. It isn't rice pudding..

 

[Chaosmancer]

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...

That is completely fair, and I would agree with you...

Except no character in the game is stopped by a rope. Or a normal river. Or a cliff. The greatest ill I think that stymies the mobility of characters in DnD is that people have implemented houserules so thoroughly into the game on this issue that almost no one actually plays by the real rules. The only ropes that you might need to roll AT ALL to climb are perhaps a rope covered in grease, or a thin metal wire. But a rope hanging over the side of a building isn't a roll at all.

Now, should a dex-based character be able to climb a sheer cliff using dex? I doubt it, it depends heavily on the type of cliff I imagine. Climb up a waterfall? No, I think that should be strength. Fight against the currents of white-water rapids? Strength for sure. But, rather than this being a win for strength, I simply point to the climbing kit and grappling hook. Additionally, if we are speaking rogues specifically having the bonus action dash makes them better than fighters at overcoming these obstacles, since they act as difficult terrain. And actually, maybe a good use for Athletics would be to overcome difficult terrain, with a DC based on the terrain. That's actually a really great idea, I think.

 

[Pauln6]

You can allow player choices to be relevant WITHOUT penalizing players for making those choices.

That's tricky thing though. If you choose one thing and that prevents you from choosing another thing, is that really a penalty or just a choice?

That said, I do think there should be ways for strength based characters to run faster, jump further, overrun more than once per round, push opponents more often etc. There is definitely design space that could have made fighters far more tactical. Battlemaster manoeuvres might as well just add extra damage for all my players care about anything other than riposte.