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.

 

[Mistwell]

Ok. Why do you think I was aggressive?

Telling someone on a rules part of the message board that they don't play by the rules is pretty aggressive for an opening comment to them, don't you think?

I just said, that the rules don't provide support for not allowing retries. That is also a different edition.

The rules say you can 1) roll if there is a chance of failure or, 2) simply pass without a roll with a passive check if a roll of 10 plus your modifier would succeed, or 3) simply pass without a roll if enough attempts would eventually succeed and you take ten times as long to do the task.

Only situation #1 calls for a roll. Situation 2 and 3 call for no roll. We were discussing a player rolling. So it has to be a situation where a failure is a failure. Otherwise, why was a roll called for?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Telling someone on a rules part of the message board that they don't play by the rules is pretty aggressive for an opening comment to them, don't you think?




The rules say you can 1) roll if there is a chance of failure or, 2) simply pass without a roll with a passive check if a roll of 10 plus your modifier would succeed, or 3) simply pass without a roll if enough attempts would eventually succeed and you take ten times as long to do the task.

Only situation #1 calls for a roll. Situation 2 and 3 call for no roll. We were discussing a player rolling. So it has to be a situation where a failure is a failure. Otherwise, why was a roll called for?

Because you did not want to spend ten times the normal time at first. But you can just take ten times the time after the first failure. As it is by the guidelines of page 237, just a shorthand for letting the players roll until they succeed.

And I was wrong telling you that you don't play by the Rules. As it is in the DMG, you just ignore guidelines if you don't allow a retry. Which is fine. But would certainly annoy me if I were a player in your campaign.

Maybe I was harsher than warranted as I have played with such rules in play too often and it has annoyed me a lot. Sorry I have loaded my annoyance onto you.

 

[Mistwell]

Because you did not want to spend ten times the normal time at first. But you can just take ten times the time after the first failure. As it is by the guidelines of page 237, just a shorthand for letting the players roll until they succeed.

And I was wrong telling you that you don't play by the Rules. As it is in the DMG, you just ignore guidelines if you don't allow a retry. Which is fine. But would certainly annoy me if I were a player in your campaign.

Maybe I was harsher than warranted as I have played with such rules in play too often and it has annoyed me a lot. Sorry I have loaded my annoyance onto you.

No worries and thank you for the apology. I appreciate it.

Yes I can see a situation where the first one is a failure and you tell the DM you know why waste time I'll just take a minute. That hasn't come up with us much, but it's a fair approach.

 

[Maxperson]

What are you on about? I do know the scenario because Mistwell set it up, and I answered. The scenario was presented as such: "How many shots do you get at picking a lock in your games? If the DC is 30, and you have a +10 modifier, do you just let them keep trying until they roll a 20?" There were no other extenuating circumstances provided. Now the DM could create a circumstance like "if you fail, the lock mechanism becomes permanently fused and you can't keep trying" but such an extenuating circumstance is not part of the scenario. The scenario existed to ask if rerolling would be allowed at all.

As for the RAW, it states: "Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task."

RAW also says it's up to the DM to determine if a retry is okay. The portion that says, "In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again." It's understandable for a DM to rule that a failed roll to open a lock means that this particular lock is beyond the skill of the PC, making it impossible. It's also understandable for a DM to rule you can continue to try until you succeed. Both are valid per RAW.

That is the basic assumption of the rule. If there is nothing stopping you, you get to keep going and with enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed if they can.

The DM can stop you with the above ruling.

That shows a specific, reasonable example where the first section isn't true. But there needs to be a reason.

And there is. This lock is beyond you because you failed to open it. Simply having a +10 vs. a DC 30 does not guarantee you unlimited tries. The DM determines what failure means, not the player and not the book.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And there is. This lock is beyond you because you failed to open it. Simply having a +10 vs. a DC 30 does not guarantee you unlimited tries. The DM determines what failure means, not the player and not the book.

Did you break the pick by rushing it in your first try? Maybe I woul rule so if you fail by too much. Maybe even failing by 5 would be enough.
I'd maybe allow you to open it on a very close failure and let the pick break.

But the DM simply declaring you can't retry because the circumstances did NOT change would make me very suspicious. (I would assume the lock is built in an elaborate way that it intentionally gets blocked if you fail to force it open with a pick.)

The examples in the DMG are quite the opposite: you can't just retry because the circumstances DID change.

So if you annoyed someone by intimidating them would make convincing them with persuasion harder afterwards. Breaking your pick in the lock makes it harder or even impossible.

 

[Maxperson]

Did you break the pick by rushing it in your first try? Maybe I woul rule so if you fail by too much. Maybe even failing by 5 would be enough.
I'd maybe allow you to open it on a very close failure and let the pick break.

But the DM simply declaring you can't retry because the circumstances did NOT change would make me very suspicious. (I would assume the lock is built in an elaborate way that it intentionally gets blocked if you fail to force it open with a pick.)

The examples in the DMG are quite the opposite: you can't just retry because the circumstances DID change.

So if you annoyed someone by intimidating them would make convincing them with persuasion harder afterwards. Breaking your pick in the lock makes it harder or even impossible.

If a lock is beyond your ability because you failed, it remains beyond your ability because you failed. That is the history of D&D. Going back to 1e the Thief had a chance to open any lock, but if he did not succeed, then the lock proved to be beyond his ability period. The chance of success was to determine whether or not the lock was even possible for the thief, not something to be rolled forever until success happened.

That concept remains if the DM wants it to and RAW supports that by allowing the DM to declare rerolls to be impossible. I get that you and @Mirrorrorrim don't play it that way, and RAW also supports your method, but you don't get to declare people who use the other method to be wrong and not playing by RAW just because they go the other way.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

RAW also says it's up to the DM to determine if a retry is okay. The portion that says, "In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again." It's understandable for a DM to rule that a failed roll to open a lock means that this particular lock is beyond the skill of the PC, making it impossible. It's also understandable for a DM to rule you can continue to try until you succeed. Both are valid per RAW.

The DM can stop you with the above ruling.

And there is. This lock is beyond you because you failed to open it. Simply having a +10 vs. a DC 30 does not guarantee you unlimited tries. The DM determines what failure means, not the player and not the book.

Agree to disagree. I interpret the first paragraph to use natural language to state that a PC can keep rolling and should be able to succeed with time, unless the natural circumstances for failure prevent that from occurring (the example for the second paragraph gave a reason why the player couldn't roll again). There was no reason that the couldn't happen again in Mistwell's example. Mistwell was generally asking what would be allowed as a baseline rule, not with a DM-ruled complication. You weren't the DM in that scenario and you don't control the scenario.

Either way, if a practice lock is DC 10, and a d20 roll gives you a natural 1 and you fail, you're taking the stance that the practice lock is beyond the skill of the trained character? That doesn't make sense. You're just reaching and making stuff up. There is no rule that says this is the way it is for all locks. If a DM says this is how it works for all locks, that would be a house rule.

Do you at least agree that my interpretation of the rule, based solely on the natural language of the writing, is as equally valid as yours?

 

[Maxperson]

Agree to disagree. I interpret the first paragraph to use natural language to state that a PC can keep rolling and should be able to succeed with time, unless the natural circumstances for failure prevent that from occurring (the example for the second paragraph gave a reason why the player couldn't roll again). There was no reason that the couldn't happen again in Mistwell's example. Mistwell was generally asking what would be allowed as a baseline rule, not with a DM-ruled complication. You weren't the DM in that scenario and you don't control the scenario.

Either way, if a practice lock is DC 10, and a d20 roll gives you a natural 1 and you fail, you're taking the stance that the practice lock is beyond the skill of the trained character? That doesn't make sense. You're just reaching and making stuff up. There is no rule that says this is the way it is for all locks. If a DM says this is how it works for all locks, that would be a house rule.

Do you at least agree that my interpretation of the rule, based solely on the natural language of the writing, is as equally valid as yours?

If a practice lock is DC 10, there is no roll because 1) the outcome is not in doubt, and 2) there is no meaningful consequence for failure.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If a lock is beyond your ability because you failed, it remains beyond your ability because you failed. That is the history of D&D. Going back to 1e the Thief had a chance to open any lock, but if he did not succeed, then the lock proved to be beyond his ability period. The chance of success was to determine whether or not the lock was even possible for the thief, not something to be rolled forever until success happened.

That concept remains if the DM wants it to and RAW supports that by allowing the DM to declare rerolls to be impossible. I get that you and @Mirrorrorrim don't play it that way, and RAW also supports your method, but you don't get to declare people who use the other method to be wrong and not playing by RAW just because they go the other way.

This concept has not been true for 24 years now. And it has never made any sense:

Take a DC 12 lock.
The guy with a +10 bonus rolls. So the lock is beyond his ability.
The guy with - 1 on his check rolls a 13 and it is an easy one.

Please watch "the gamers" and how they try to lift a gate.

Play as you like. I already took back that it is not playing by the rules as it is just a guideline in the DMG. So feel free to ignore them.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If a practice lock is DC 10, there is no roll because 1) the outcome is not in doubt, and 2) there is no meaningful consequence for failure.

This is plain wrong. A practice lock is also a lock. Come to my house and I can borrow you my set.

As I already explained before. Before I got my practice set, I opened a real padlock with two paper clips, because my 4 year old son had locked the only key on the padlock shackle. The only help I had was a you tube video and time. And I can't count how many tines I failed before it opened.

The training lock is only easier, because you can remove a rubber shell to look inside.