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.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Are we supposed to care about rules or not?

Yes and No. What answer do you want from me? Yes, a game is defined by rules, so we should care about them. But no, sometimes the rules make the game worse and we shouldn't care about them. This is like asking "should we love our parents or not?" It is a but more complicated than a simple binary yes/no answer, and you are providing no context other than "at some point I was told we shouldn't care about the rules"

So, are you going to explain, or are you just going to continue taking the stance that someone else told you something, so then something else someone told you shouldn't be how it works.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I already said I'm not going to continue this. We're done.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I already said I'm not going to continue this. We're done.

Huh?

Oh, you edited your post after I posted. Okay, fine. Bizarre tangent over.

 

[Pauln6]

There is a difference between “doesn’t benefit a character enough to be worth it” and “has literally no benefit”.

It’s annoying that my acrobat character has the strength of a relatively fit bookworm (my PCs usually have 10 minimum, but this pc might have a 12 Str), but the system punishes putting points into strength as a PC that doesn’t use Str to attack.

In order to be decent at necessary stuff, the character can’t be good at stuff that thematically they should be good at.

There is a difference between “doesn’t benefit a character enough to be worth it” and “has literally no benefit”.

It’s annoying that my acrobat character has the strength of a relatively fit bookworm (my PCs usually have 10 minimum, but this pc might have a 12 Str), but the system punishes putting points into strength as a PC that doesn’t use Str to attack.

In order to be decent at necessary stuff, the character can’t be good at stuff that thematically they should be good at.

I do get the frustration but in earlier editions the acrobatic monk and thief-acrobat classes both had Strength requirements of 14-15. In more recent editions, the requirements were removed but not all the consequences. The current system is already a compromise.

Again, what is being argued for here seems to be a subclass feature or a feat for acrobatic classes rather than a flaw in the main rules. The rules are implementing a much lighter penalty than earlier editions and that was very much intentional.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The easiest way to rewire our brains on the whole ability checks thing is to just look at it this way:

The 1st level dexterity-high PC that has invested no points in strength has a Strength (Athletics) score of 1-20.

You look at it that way and having no points in strength ain't nearly so bad.

The 1st level PC proficient in Athletics and with a good strength has a Strength (Athletics) score of 6-25.

Take a look at the two formats together while understanding that a medium DC is 15... what makes you feel worse?

Dex-based character: +0 on STR (Athletics) checks
Str-based character: +5 on STR (Athletics) checks

or

Dex-based character: 1-20 score on STR (Athletics) checks
Str-based character: 6-25 score on STR (Athletics) checks

 

[CapnZapp]

No, it is based upon the rules of the game, that people keep ignoring like it is some massive blank hole in the PHB. Which frustrates me endlessly.

I once had a DM try to force me to roll athletics to climb, when my character HAD a climb speed, because they didn't want me to constantly be above the reach of melee enemies. And I think that fear of the third-dimension is what is behind so many people memory-holing how the climbing rules actually function.

Pro Tip:

Whenever "so many people" memory-holes a rule, the first order of business is to ask yourself:

Is there something wrong with the rule?

The reason there's a "massive blank hole" probably isn't that people are deficient. Instead, likely the rule leads to undesirable results and/or is counterintuitive when used, if not outright too hard and complex to use (not applicable in this case).

In this case, the rules simply aren't prescriptive enough. They're too open-ended.

• In one DMs campaign a hero with Climb speed can simply move in three dimensions up to their listed Speed. This is way too good for some groups - more importantly, this mechanic would give no sense of achievement, since no skill or check is involved. Basically, it drains all drama and excitement from three-dimensional combat since heroes just move as if on a paved road. The choice whether to risk some heroic movement or opt for safer more conservative positioning disappears.
• In one DMs campaign a hero without Climb speed moves at half speed, and only if they make an Athletics check. Different DMs use different DCs, since the book doesn't say*. What happens if the check is failed can differ further. This can become so restrictive (if it isn't too hard it might be too time consuming), the group simply opts for alternative solutions. Just to mention one: getting Misty Step is fairly easy and becomes a game-changer in this type of campaign. (Remember, diagonals doesn't count extra in 5th Edition, so moving along the "diagonal of the cube" nets you 1.7 times the movement. That is, a point in space that is 30 feet north of you and 30 feet east of you AND 30 feet above you is actually 30x1.7≈50 feet from you.)

*) and don't try "the DC will be 10, since the rules say so". You know very well that official published adventures have their own ideas of what DCs to use. Some wall can be "no check" in one scenario and DC 30 in another, depending on how much of a challenge the wall is intended to represent.

Both will be able to claim they've interpreted the rules correctly.

Whenever the rules just leave fundamental things up for grabs, that's another way of saying the rules are failing in their first and foremost task: telling the players how to do something. No wonder people just make something up, or reuse various bits and pieces from previous editions. No wonder people don't understand each other - the rules have failed to facilitate common grounds for the discussion.

 

[CapnZapp]

So the DM is not wrong to ask for climb checks even if you have a climb speed. All the climb speed does is not reducing your speed when doing normal climbs that don't require checks at all.

Another example of the real culprit: rules that avoid responsibility. Rules that try to cater to everybody... and end up confusing and alienating most of you.

Now I'm not saying the quoted claim is wrong. The rules are just too vague, allowing no less than three interpretations of this passage alone:
1) having a climb speed means you don't have to make climb (Athletics) checks
2) having a climb speed doesn't save you from having to make climb checks
3) your speed is only un-reduced when you don't make a climb speed

All these three claims can be said to be correct (in the poster's campaign). More to the point, the rules have failed to the degree that all these claims can be said to be incorrect (in your campaign)!

 

[CapnZapp]

All that said, it further supports my position in that you don't need to merge Athletics and Acrobatics into one "movement check" that uses your best Ability Score if you don't need to roll in the first place.

This is technically true. If you don't need to roll, what Ability you don't roll hardly matters

It also misses the point of contention - see the posts I just made.

 

[CapnZapp]

Technically, the DM isn't wrong to ask for those, but it seems punitive to force characters into rolls that they are not otherwise required to make.

This perspective is generally not constructive.

Please don't fall victim to player entitlement. If you consider the DM asking you for checks to be punitive, you have a dysfunctional mindset. The solution is for you change mindset to one where you accept and trust your DMs decisions.

The notion that characters are not required to do something by the rules but the DM asks for it anyway just doesn't work. Please accept that what the GM says is the rules. Not what the rulebook says. And in this case, the rules specifically leaves the decision up to the DM. (A distinction that is mentally risky, since it opens up the idea that if the rules don't specifically leave a decision up to the DM, then the DM isn't empowered to make that decision. In reality, every rule can be overridden by the DM, full stop.)

Regards

 

[CapnZapp]

But when you build these characters... it is highly likely that you aren't prioritizing all three physical stats.

Exactly.

Too many replies consider "realism" only, and appears to totally forget how prohibitive it would be to ask a character to focus on all three physical stats.

Put otherwise: it's not fun to be told "in this game you CAN both jump and balance, but only if you're stupid, unwise and boring".

As if that was an even trade.