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]

Well, the solution to Rogues not being able to move around the battlefield like some people want could be as simple as altering the movement rules to allow people to move in more dynamic ways.

Honestly, DnD combat is so pathetically static at times. Even in 5e, where people finally have the freedom to break up their movement and attack as they wish... most people run up and stop next an enemy, then stay in that exact spot while the enemies try to bury them in waves. No fight is choreographed that way, because it is boring.

Now, maybe that isn't a solution that accomplishes your goals. But it is a solution to the proposed problem.



This... doesn't address any of that. Yes, these can be ways to improve strength, but you are missing a fundamental point. Let us say you need a DC 12, and you could roll a +7 or a +3 and deal a little damage... you roll the +7 every time. And if you have the choice between making that +3 you rarely ever bother to us a +4, or improving literally every single thing you are relied upon to accomplish and your entire kit... you improve everything.

And, while you may not like it, we need to acknowledge that unlike every other skill pairing, strength and dexterity are in direct competition. A character may choose to broaden their abilities by increasing wisdom or charisma, or make themselves tougher with con, but increasing strength only gives them options in combat that run directly counter to the things they already want to do. You are saying they could take all these tactical options if they CAN'T use sneak attack... but if they are in melee and not able to use sneak attack, the rogue has made a mistake. And it isn't a mistake they can fix by making a weaker attack that is less likely to hit.

Ok, I do get that, as far as combat goes, strength and dexterity are competing for a lot of the same space. That said, it isn't ALL the same space.

The point of the game is that your DM is supposed to challenge you, so you may not be making a mistake if placed in a position where your best option does not have the highest chance of success. All classes and subclasses have strengths and weaknesses and all players do their best to plug or avoid the weaknesses. That's the game working as best it can. Smart monsters will try to catch you out and succeeding against the odds is part of the fun.

The weapon masteries and Rogue attack options have made combat a bit less static. I was quite surprised at the difference they make At-will.

I am struggling to understand your claim that rogues aren't mobile enough though. They can use their bonus action to dash, and new weapon masteries make that even easier if you are a two weapon build. Swashbucklers can bounce in and out of melee. Thieves can climb quickly. Any Rogue can put expertise in movement skills. Arcane tricksters can cast Jump, levitate, fly, or misty step. If you don't have the right subclass, you can pick mobile, or athlete, possibly other feats. You can partner with a battlemaster fighter for various combos. You can partner with an ally with Sentinel for combos.

There are loads of ways to build your Rogue character. Is what you are concerned about just that you want to be able to do all those things without additional investment?

 

[Pauln6]

A: Hey, what do we want strength characters to do?

B: They should be able to wear really thick and heavy armor, in fact, lets penalize anyone with low strength who tries to wear it. That will help make high strength characters feel really different and special in combat.

A: I like that. What else should they do?

B: They should be the best at climbing, swimming and jumping!

A: That's great, in fact. woah, dude, brain wave! What if we made everyone who wears the thick heavy armor that only high strength characters wear take penalties to climbing, swimming and jumping that high strength characters are the best at! That way the low strength characters without those penalties do almost as good!


Yeah, again... no? Why would we ever want this? Seriously, I know that technically the light armored rogue is jumping 3 less feet than the heavy armored fighter, but when the majority of the game works in increments of 5, you have practically made them identical.

And guess what, High Strength characters suck at range. Guess what happens when you have a character with a -10 movement speed? They have trouble getting into melee and will spend more time fighting at range... which a high strength character is BAD AT DOING.

Seriously, all these rules are doing is punishing high strength characters for attempting to take the actions high strength characters do. I get you think it is "more realistic" but just like it might be more realistic to make daily con saves versus gangrene and dysentery, all you are accomplishing is punishing people. But only in a way that makes it harder for Strength-based characters to be effective.



This seems like a complete non-sequitur to the rest of the post?

I actually agree with everything you said there. I'm just playing Devil's advocate. Realism can sometimes be more abstract for the purposes of game mechanics. Sometimes game balance is its own reward.

As far as movement goes though, in 1e heavy armoured character carried a bow to get off a round of missile fire while closing. Mobile characters did not really want to be first into melee either, or they were in a vulnerable position, so you sort of fell into that battle pattern. It does actually open up some interesting tactical dilemmas in 5e, not the least of which is the issue of equipping shields (use spears or javelins maybe?) and the problemof showboating glass cannons dictating the resting rota. I think because this isn't optimal, it has become an almost unforgiveable sin rather than a tactical necessity.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think I understand the broad gist of what you are saying but none of the specifics. I think I don't understand how putting points in strength makes a character noticeably weaker in combat. It enhances strength-based options that may not be optimal (partly because some of them already key off dex as well as strength) but it still carries benefits. If you roll your stats, you just have to make a choice how to prioritise them, so you have less control than points buy but you still have to prioritise either way and that means giving up on putting points elsewhere.

So if a feat, a class feature, and alterations to the skills aren't what you want to plug this perceived gap, what would work for you?

If a rogue prioritises wisdom, they will be better at spotting obvious traps and ambushes but will be less athletic, have less hit points, be worse at cracking codes, researching targets, and disarming complex or magical traps, and be less persuasive.

If a rogue prioritises intelligence, they will be better at cracking codes, researching targets, and disarming complex or magical traps, but will have less hit points, be less able to spot obvious traps and ambushes, be less athletic, and be less persuasive.

A rogue who prioritising strength will be more athletic, better able to rely on improvised weapons, better able to break into arcane locked areas but have less hit points, be worse at cracking codes, researching targets, and disarming complex or magical traps, be less able to spot obvious traps and ambushes, and be less persuasive.

Are you saying that rogue abilities should be siloed like in 1e so their abilities are all tied to dexterity but also to rogue levels rather than character level? If not, can you explain how you would like to achieve your goal in practical terms rather than just as a broad wish?

If a rogue prioritizes Strength, they will gain vanishingly little, and give up all the much touted benefits of those other ability scores.

Literally the ability scores are the problem. Feats and such are just patches, at best.

 

[Pauln6]

If a rogue prioritizes Strength, they will gain vanishingly little, and give up all the much touted benefits of those other ability scores.

Literally the ability scores are the problem. Feats and such are just patches, at best.

Hmm ok, if none of the existing 'patches' float your boat, what alternative solution are you proposing?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Ok, I do get that, as far as combat goes, strength and dexterity are competing for a lot of the same space. That said, it isn't ALL the same space.

The point of the game is that your DM is supposed to challenge you, so you may not be making a mistake if placed in a position where your best option does not have the highest chance of success. All classes and subclasses have strengths and weaknesses and all players do their best to plug or avoid the weaknesses. That's the game working as best it can. Smart monsters will try to catch you out and succeeding against the odds is part of the fun.

But in what situation is attempting a disarm your best action as a Rogue? Or a grapple? Sure, maybe you can come up with some situation where an enemy has the McGuffin and is running to a portal, and only the rogue has the speed to close the distance and tackle them to get the item, but they can't use sleight of hand, because of the size of the item.... but that isn't going to happen every adventure.

And what the things monsters are going to do? Grapple? Well, the rules allow you to use Dexterity to slip out of a grapple. And, even while grappled the rogue can still do most everything else in their kit. So, again, while it sounds very good and true to say that "everyone has strength and weaknesses" and you need to fortify those weaknesses because "smart monsters will try to catch you out" in practice... That doesn't show the whole picture. If the worst a low strength causes is you needing more special equipment and to occasionally get caught in melee with a monster, it is far far less dangerous than the myriad of dangers you can face from lower wisdom for example.

And meanwhile, the benefit that was being discussed? It was about dynamic movement through the battlefield. Not exactly something that we really need to prevent or give a high cost to attaining.

I am struggling to understand your claim that rogues aren't mobile enough though. They can use their bonus action to dash, and new weapon masteries make that even easier if you are a two weapon build. Swashbucklers can bounce in and out of melee. Thieves can climb quickly. Any Rogue can put expertise in movement skills. Arcane tricksters can cast Jump, levitate, fly, or misty step. If you don't have the right subclass, you can pick mobile, or athlete, possibly other feats. You can partner with a battlemaster fighter for various combos. You can partner with an ally with Sentinel for combos.

There are loads of ways to build your Rogue character. Is what you are concerned about just that you want to be able to do all those things without additional investment?

Okay, you are conflating multiple points here, and arguments from different people, then turning around with an accusation.

1) I never stated that Rogues are not Mobile enough. That was the position of another poster, with whom you are discussing.

1a) Their position is more specific than "not mobile enough". It is that they should not be penalized by the reality of the game, by making it harder to do what the archetype indicates they should do. That is jumping and climbing specifically. Bouncing in and out of melee has nothing to do with it. Casting spells has nothing to do with it. Partnering with people who have other abilities is a non-sequitor entirely.

2) MY point was that there is no problem in redesigning the movement rules, to allow for more dynamic movement. This is a potential solution to the problem that poster was speaking to, the difficulty in movement using jumping and climbing.

2a) I made this point because YOU stated that you wanted people to not merely complain, but to offer solutions. However, your solutions were focused on "how do I make strength useful for rogues" which is not the complaint.

2b) To further my point, I mentioned that ALL DnD characters tend to be incredibly static. The most common thing I see a rogue do is stand 60 ft back with a ranged weapon and snipe the enemy repeatedly. Melee characters tend to stay in one place. Casters tend to barely move. This lack of dynamic movement is sometimes seen as a very boring part of DnD combat, and so fixing it while ALSO addressing the complaint of the other poster, could be seen as a good thing in and of itself.

3) This is NOT about wanting to do things without an investment. Fighters who invest heavily in strength are also static and barely interact with the world of DnD in a 3-dimensional manner. This is about offering a solution, after you demanded one, and showcasing that the solution to this idea that dex-archetypes have a hard time fulfilling parts of their archetype (archer in the trees, duelist swinging from chandeliers, a criminal climbing a tower) is not required to be "make dex characters also want a high strength score"

 

[Pauln6]

But in what situation is attempting a disarm your best action as a Rogue? Or a grapple? Sure, maybe you can come up with some situation where an enemy has the McGuffin and is running to a portal, and only the rogue has the speed to close the distance and tackle them to get the item, but they can't use sleight of hand, because of the size of the item.... but that isn't going to happen every adventure.

And what the things monsters are going to do? Grapple? Well, the rules allow you to use Dexterity to slip out of a grapple. And, even while grappled the rogue can still do most everything else in their kit. So, again, while it sounds very good and true to say that "everyone has strength and weaknesses" and you need to fortify those weaknesses because "smart monsters will try to catch you out" in practice... That doesn't show the whole picture. If the worst a low strength causes is you needing more special equipment and to occasionally get caught in melee with a monster, it is far far less dangerous than the myriad of dangers you can face from lower wisdom for example.

And meanwhile, the benefit that was being discussed? It was about dynamic movement through the battlefield. Not exactly something that we really need to prevent or give a high cost to attaining.



Okay, you are conflating multiple points here, and arguments from different people, then turning around with an accusation.

1) I never stated that Rogues are not Mobile enough. That was the position of another poster, with whom you are discussing.

1a) Their position is more specific than "not mobile enough". It is that they should not be penalized by the reality of the game, by making it harder to do what the archetype indicates they should do. That is jumping and climbing specifically. Bouncing in and out of melee has nothing to do with it. Casting spells has nothing to do with it. Partnering with people who have other abilities is a non-sequitor entirely.

2) MY point was that there is no problem in redesigning the movement rules, to allow for more dynamic movement. This is a potential solution to the problem that poster was speaking to, the difficulty in movement using jumping and climbing.

2a) I made this point because YOU stated that you wanted people to not merely complain, but to offer solutions. However, your solutions were focused on "how do I make strength useful for rogues" which is not the complaint.

2b) To further my point, I mentioned that ALL DnD characters tend to be incredibly static. The most common thing I see a rogue do is stand 60 ft back with a ranged weapon and snipe the enemy repeatedly. Melee characters tend to stay in one place. Casters tend to barely move. This lack of dynamic movement is sometimes seen as a very boring part of DnD combat, and so fixing it while ALSO addressing the complaint of the other poster, could be seen as a good thing in and of itself.

3) This is NOT about wanting to do things without an investment. Fighters who invest heavily in strength are also static and barely interact with the world of DnD in a 3-dimensional manner. This is about offering a solution, after you demanded one, and showcasing that the solution to this idea that dex-archetypes have a hard time fulfilling parts of their archetype (archer in the trees, duelist swinging from chandeliers, a criminal climbing a tower) is not required to be "make dex characters also want a high strength score"

I am usually responding on tea break at work so apologies if some points may get conflated over time. I'm playing Devil's Advocate rather than making accusations as I am interested to see what ideas come out of these discussions but all we often see aspirations rather than solutions. I do agree about fighters' inability to own the battlefield (and there are various suggestions elsewhere on how to improve this) but climbing a tree would not require a strength check (unless maybe it's slippery), swinging from a chandelier would be a dexterity based Manoeuvre (although jumping the distance to the chandelier would be based on strength), and a thief can climb a tower easily enough if they put expertise in athletics. There exist some solutions already, what we need are the different solutions if these are not suitable.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I actually agree with everything you said there. I'm just playing Devil's advocate. Realism can sometimes be more abstract for the purposes of game mechanics. Sometimes game balance is its own reward.

As far as movement goes though, in 1e heavy armoured character carried a bow to get off a round of missile fire while closing. Mobile characters did not really want to be first into melee either, or they were in a vulnerable position, so you sort of fell into that battle pattern. It does actually open up some interesting tactical dilemmas in 5e, not the least of which is the issue of equipping shields (use spears or javelins maybe?) and the problemof showboating glass cannons dictating the resting rota. I think because this isn't optimal, it has become an almost unforgiveable sin rather than a tactical necessity.

Yeah, I don't see any tactical dilemnas here. I'm not even really sure what you are talking about, to be honest.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I am usually responding on tea break at work so apologies if some points may get conflated over time. I'm playing Devil's Advocate rather than making accusations as I am interested to see what ideas come out of these discussions but all we often see aspirations rather than solutions. I do agree about fighters' inability to own the battlefield (and there are various suggestions elsewhere on how to improve this) but climbing a tree would not require a strength check (unless maybe it's slippery), swinging from a chandelier would be a dexterity based Manoeuvre (although jumping the distance to the chandelier would be based on strength), and a thief can climb a tower easily enough if they put expertise in athletics. There exist some solutions already, what we need are the different solutions if these are not suitable.

And that is why I'm not fully in agreement with that poster, about the rogue or other dex-characters having this issue. Because I think simply running the rules as they exist should be enough to fix the 3D problem.

But, I also think that you are still missing the larger point I was trying to make. You may be attempting to play Devil's Advocate, but the question you were bedeviling was "how can I help dex-based characters jump and climb like they should?" and your response was to hold that strength was still absolutely needed by those movements, and that the solution might be to make strength more attractive to dex-based characters. And further, you asked me if I wanted to have all the benefits of every rogue without paying the cost of those benefits.

What you seem to have missed, in your position that boosting the appeal of strength is the answer, is that there is another direction to take this. I don't know exactly what it may look like, but altering the movement rules as a baseline may not give all the strength benefits to a dex character, but give strength AND dex characters more dynamism in the world, something that ALL classes but especially non-spellcasting classes need. It is a different direction, instead of trying to make the strength stat more appealing to someone who doesn't need strength, by giving them actions that they don't desire.

 

[Pauln6]

And that is why I'm not fully in agreement with that poster, about the rogue or other dex-characters having this issue. Because I think simply running the rules as they exist should be enough to fix the 3D problem.

But, I also think that you are still missing the larger point I was trying to make. You may be attempting to play Devil's Advocate, but the question you were bedeviling was "how can I help dex-based characters jump and climb like they should?" and your response was to hold that strength was still absolutely needed by those movements, and that the solution might be to make strength more attractive to dex-based characters. And further, you asked me if I wanted to have all the benefits of every rogue without paying the cost of those benefits.

What you seem to have missed, in your position that boosting the appeal of strength is the answer, is that there is another direction to take this. I don't know exactly what it may look like, but altering the movement rules as a baseline may not give all the strength benefits to a dex character, but give strength AND dex characters more dynamism in the world, something that ALL classes but especially non-spellcasting classes need. It is a different direction, instead of trying to make the strength stat more appealing to someone who doesn't need strength, by giving them actions that they don't desire.

Yes, it's not that I think that's a bad idea, it's that I can't think of a way to implement that in 5.5. This is a layer of jam on the existing bread. They aren't throwing the bread away to make a curry.

I can think of ways to make fighters better, such as letting them apply disadvantage to opportunity attacks, maybe after attacking once, letting them trade one attack for 10 feet of movement, letting them add a fighter level bonus to initiative etc plus the ideas from level up. Rogues are already so versatile, I struggle to see what you can add. Critical strikes are awesome but seem to me to be mugging the fighter of some options that really should be available to them.

Level up tends to have alternate class options that might cover some of what you want. I'm fairly sure fighters have jumping and climbing enhancements as optional class features.

The tactical dilemma I was talking of with melee vs missile was the strength / dexterity issue, that thrown weapons have a shorter range and long range weapons with dex being considered sub optimal due to lower attack bonus.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hmm ok, if none of the existing 'patches' float your boat, what alternative solution are you proposing?

What part of what I’ve said already was unclear? I genuinely have no idea what is being missed.