D&D (2024) Jeremy Crawford Gives an Overview of the New Unearthed Arcana

The upcoming Unearthed Arcana playtest packet for One D&D gets a preview from WotC's Jeremy Crawford. This is apparently the largest of these playtest packets so far, and the biggest Unearthed Arcana they have ever done, at 50 pages long.

It contains 5 classes, new spells, new feats, a revised rules glossary, and the new weapon mastery system.

​

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Flex is pretty much going to be getting a rant from me in the playtest. Self-undermining design like that really furrows my brows.

I like it. shrug It offers a simple option for those who don't need the tech.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

I’m fine with all that. My issue is with the idea of the blade pact needing to get any of the Sam features as the Hexblade.

I think that some of the features baked into the Hexblade do need to be moved to Pact of Blades, but that's mostly because the Hexblade as it currently exists is using up a chunk of its design space to prop up Pact of Blades. If anything, that's weighing it down.

I'm not saying make 70% of the Hexblade subclass redundant by giving a handful of its features to Pact of Blades, I'm saying give those features to Pact of Blades and free up that 70% so they can revise the Hexblade and let it lean even harder into cool ways to hex and curse your opponents.

Warlock only has three subclass options in the '14 PHB, but is supposedly being given four in the '24 revision. Given its popularity, a revised Hexblade seems like a decent choice for that fourth slot.

 

[Incenjucar]

I like it. shrug It offers a simple option for those who don't need the tech.

It takes some of the most interesting weapons and eliminates what makes them interesting.

It would be better to take a generic one-handed weapon and increase the damage die instead.

 

[Kannik]

Interesting that they say “this is the most fun I ever had as a fighter” and “this gives the fighter round by round interesting things to do” like they are admitting the problem.

So let me recap. The fighter gets a choice of masteries they can use when they make an attack.

Good to see 4e At Will attacks coming back for the fighter. Although not at low level. And giving fighters At Wills is the most fun Crawford has ever had as a fighter?

As someone who enjoyed the flexibility and how dynamic the 4e fighter was, returning some At-Wills as an option and/or further utilizing the Battlemaster's chassis as a baseline is most welcome.

"Most fun" will have a lot to live up to in that regard.

 

[WanderingMystic]

So right now if you want to have a shelf in your office hand these are your options.

d6 weapon with the thrown property
Flex: spear
piercing: hand axe
slow: javelin

d8
flex: battle-axe, longsword, warhammer
sap: Flail, morningstar, war pick
piercing: rapier (finesse)
topple: trident (also thrown)

This give a big bonus to the two handed weapons as far as their usefulness because this is where you get cleave, push, and graze.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I mean that as a DM this will slow down combat for such a small benefit I fear I will be doing the "Oh @#$&" meme

And you can't tell someone they can't switch weapons EVERY ATTACK if it's in their power budget.

How much of a problem is this really? Resistance to everything except that one thing was common once but it is pretty much absent from modern D&D. However, even back in the day when it was an issue, the golf bag of weapons was a thing more spoken about than seen at the table. At least in my experience.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

It takes some of the most interesting weapons and eliminates what makes them interesting.

It would be better to take a generic one-handed weapon and increase the damage die instead.

It does not eliminate anything. Let's take the longsword, for instance.

1. Without Flex Mastery (let's say a ranger, paladin, bard, or a fighter that does not select the "flex/longsword" Mastery option), versatile lets you use the longsword in one hand for 1d8 damage, or two hands for 1d10 damage. When does this happen? Perhaps when shieldless Rangers and Fighters drop their ranged weapon to swing their sword with both hands for some extra oomph? Or whenever a shield-bearing combatant cannot use their shield? Any which way you slice it, it's fine. This still works. How many people actually plan to use 2-hands with their longsword as their primary way to attack? I think it's only to get an extra bit of oomph when you have nothing else to do with your off hand.

2. However, with Flex Mastery (let's say a fighter chooses this mastery), versatile lets you deal 1d10 damage while your off-hand is busy, like when you use a shield, or are hanging from a rope, or want to be able to make unarmed strikes to grapple your opponent. Yes, "Versatile" does effectively become a keyword that enables you to do all those things, but your damage is as good as many 2-hand weapons, opening up tactical options without giving up damage. For instance, if a high level Fighter can implement more than one mastery on the longsword, they can choose between Flex and whatever that other Mastery option is from attack to attack. And if the designers decide to create an option that allows characters to wield 2 non-light weapons for two-weapon fighting, there are so many people who would love to dual-wield 2 longswords for 1d10 damage each. I'd do it at least once.

Sure it's not super powerful, but it is fine. I can see a place for it. That said, if they drop it or replace it as part of the playtest process, I won't get too bent out of shape over it.

 

[Gorck]

2 if you bring a hireling to act as a caddy

"I looks like you're still about 120 feet away from you're target. I'd suggest going with the Longbow here."

 

[Incenjucar]

It does not eliminate anything. Let's take the longsword, for instance.

1. Without Flex Mastery (let's say a ranger, paladin, bard, or a fighter that does not select the "flex/longsword" Mastery option), versatile lets you use the longsword in one hand for 1d8 damage, or two hands for 1d10 damage. When does this happen? Perhaps when shieldless Rangers and Fighters drop their ranged weapon to swing their sword with both hands for some extra oomph? Or whenever a shield-bearing combatant cannot use their shield? Any which way you slice it, it's fine. This still works. How many people actually plan to use 2-hands with their longsword as their primary way to attack? I think it's only to get an extra bit of oomph when you have nothing else to do with your off hand.

2. However, with Flex Mastery (let's say a fighter chooses this mastery), versatile lets you deal 1d10 damage while your off-hand is busy, like when you use a shield, or are hanging from a rope, or want to be able to make unarmed strikes to grapple your opponent. Yes, "Versatile" does effectively become a keyword that enables you to do all those things, but your damage is as good as many 2-hand weapons, opening up tactical options without giving up damage. For instance, if a high level Fighter can implement more than one mastery on the longsword, they can choose between Flex and whatever that other Mastery option is from attack to attack. And if the designers decide to create an option that allows characters to wield 2 non-light weapons for two-weapon fighting, there are so many people who would love to dual-wield 2 longswords for 1d10 damage each. I'd do it at least once.

Sure it's not super powerful, but it is fine. I can see a place for it. That said, if they drop it or replace it as part of the playtest process, I won't get too bent out of shape over it.

With Flex, your weapon is now just a strong one-handed weapon with nothing else interesting. It basically erases the versatile part of the weapon.

 

[dave2008]

I'm very blackpilled on this, I got no hopes they'll actually fix martials especially after they said Monks aren't getting masteries immediately

That just means the monk playtest is not included in the next playtest. I thought that was pretty clear