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.

 

[tetrasodium]

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)!

Those three points & the bolded bit especially are spot on. The player : gm clash would have been largely avoided had climb speed been better designed to grant a minimum DC x result(ie dc5 or dc10) when climbing and possibly adding a "you move at Y feet per [unit of time] while climbing. Instead it's an ability with wording that tries to suggest that a player has the ability to say "no stuff it, I just do it" to the gm no matter what they are climbing or the conditions involved

 

[James Gasik]

Solution: play a race with a fly speed.

(Yeah, I know, those are likely banned at most tables for this exact reason)

 

[Maxperson]

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)!

This isn't a rule failure in 5e. It's a rule feature. Whether you like the idea or not, 5e is intentionally written vaguely in many areas to reinforce the rulings over rules mantra of 5e. They were trying to bring the game back to the older editions where the DM decided more, rather than relying on highly specific rules.

 

[Maxperson]

Solution: play a race with a fly speed.

(Yeah, I know, those are likely banned at most tables for this exact reason)

I don't know. If the player accepted having to zig zag and fly in circles, I'd give his PC a fly's speed.

 

[tetrasodium]

This isn't a rule failure in 5e. It's a rule feature. Whether you like the idea or not, 5e is intentionally written vaguely in many areas to reinforce the rulings over rules mantra of 5e. They were trying to bring the game back to the older editions where the DM decided more, rather than relying on highly specific rules.

You have a climb speed of 30 feet is not vague, not does it "reinforce" gm rulings. What it does is attempt to limit the gm's influence with an out of place absolute.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

How it compares to older editions doesn’t really determine much of anything about how it is received right now. I’m not playing ODND, I’m playing 5e.

But beyond that, in those editions IIRC it wasn’t as big of a deal what you numbers were because they weren’t the primary factor in how effective you were.

Or we could compare 4e, that actually accomplished a D&D where You can attack very well, defend reasonably well in each defense, and be good enough at any given skill to say “this character is good at” that skill. There were limitations and trade-offs but they weren’t “oh you’re a Dex character so don’t expect to ever be useful in a strength based activity”.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Solution: play a race with a fly speed.

(Yeah, I know, those are likely banned at most tables for this exact reason)

IME they’re pretty rarely banned

 

[Vaalingrade]

This isn't a rule failure in 5e. It's a rule feature. Whether you like the idea or not, 5e is intentionally written vaguely in many areas to reinforce the rulings over rules mantra of 5e. They were trying to bring the game back to the older editions where the DM decided more, rather than relying on highly specific rules.

It can be intentional and still a failing.

 

[Maxperson]

It can be intentional and still a failing.

Yes of course, but it wouldn't be a failing of the rule, since the rule is working as intended. Rather it would be a failing of the philosophy behind the rule.

I'm torn on that one. I like the rulings over rules philosophy, but am often frustrated at just how vague some of the rules are.

 

[Pauln6]

How it compares to older editions doesn’t really determine much of anything about how it is received right now. I’m not playing ODND, I’m playing 5e.

But beyond that, in those editions IIRC it wasn’t as big of a deal what you numbers were because they weren’t the primary factor in how effective you were.

Or we could compare 4e, that actually accomplished a D&D where You can attack very well, defend reasonably well in each defense, and be good enough at any given skill to say “this character is good at” that skill. There were limitations and trade-offs but they weren’t “oh you’re a Dex character so don’t expect to ever be useful in a strength based activity”.

Except, far more people tout Dexterity as the uber-stat in 5e as it is now. Expanding that further doesn’t feel as sensible as a feat or a subclass feature for specific acrobatic builds.