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.

​

 

[Parmandur]

Have they?

I have not seen/heard them say "pre-2024 subclasses can be used with 2024 classes", and trying to follow the stakes of this discussion is a challenge because that seems a remarkably unrealistic expectation. It's not a fault of class design; it's an inevitable consequence, I would say.

Indeed, I've not seen them say anything that could not be construed as "a 2014-to-Tasha class/subclass combination can be played as part of the same party as a character made with the 2024 rules" (that's all "backwards compatibility" needs to mean). They have suggested guidelines will be provided for other adjustments, but these high-granularity critiques based on the first round of playtest material all seems premised on an expectation that I would say they have no intention of meeting.

Easy enough to have missed it, but ues, Crawford has said explicitly on multiple occasions, and it has been put in the actual playtest packet as an explicit design goal, that the new Class chassis in their final form will be able to use any existing 5E Subclass for that given Class. They have admitted it isn't fully there yet, as getting thst fully tuned is a final pass editing part of their internal playtest, but the idea is you can pick up SCAG or your 2014 PHB and pick any Subclass and go using the 2024 base Class.

Just a reminder that the survey is open until June 7th. Pretty sure that means it will end at midnight tonight.

Based on prior examples, like 5 or 6 AM PsT tomorrow.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Easy enough to have missed it, but ues, Crawford has said explicitly on multiple occasions, and it has been put in the actual playtest packet as an explicit design goal, that the new Class chassis in their final form will be able to use any existing 5E Subclass for that given Class. They have admitted it isn't fully there yet, as getting thst fully tuned is a final pass editing part of their internal playtest, but the idea is you can pick up SCAG or your 2014 PHB and pick any Subclass and go using the 2024 base Class.

I presume you're referring to text like this, from Druids and Paladins:
"If the older subclass offers features at levels that are different from the subclass levels in the class, follow the older subclass’s level progression after the class lets you gain the subclass. You might find an older subclass doesn’t fully work with the features in the playtest version of a class. If we publish the new version of the class, we’ll resolve that discrepancy."

Sentence one gives a rule of thumb (so that, e.g., a playtest cleric gets level 1 and 2 subclass abilities from a previous book at level 3).
Sentence two recognizes there will be problems and inconsistencies.

So is it all hanging on sentence three: "If we publish the new version of the class, we’ll resolve that discrepancy"? That's pretty vague, if so, and certainly not enough to justify the concern seen here.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No it's not.

Which are these "relevant rules"?

You kidding? No?

Good lord.

Read the playtest Bardic Inspiration, and then read the Eloquence College features.

The creature keeps the die. The die is used in a specific way in the playtest class feature, so the creature can use it in that way.

It’s not rocket surgery, it literally just needs maybe 2 sentences added to the new revised feature before it goes to print to make stuff like this super clear.

 

[Faolyn]

Seriously? You actually need that explicitly spelled out what the PC can do with that die? What do you think a PC will do with a single die of bardic inspiration?

I mean, sure, let's clean up the verbiage and make things clear, but, this seems like being deliberately obtuse.

Oh, come on, I know you've seen plenty of rules debate threads online. Yes, in a game like D&D that tries to have rules for everything, they do need it explicitly spelled out or there will end up being dozens of ginormous and heated threads across multiple forums about that exact question.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Read the playtest Bardic Inspiration, and then read the Eloquence College features.

The creature keeps the die. The die is used in a specific way in the playtest class feature, so the creature can use it in that way.

Can the creatue use it the way the bard does? Giving it to another creature? It's not clear at all, there are tons of valid interpretations.

 

[Parmandur]

I presume you're referring to text like this, from Druids and Paladins:
"If the older subclass offers features at levels that are different from the subclass levels in the class, follow the older subclass’s level progression after the class lets you gain the subclass. You might find an older subclass doesn’t fully work with the features in the playtest version of a class. If we publish the new version of the class, we’ll resolve that discrepancy."

Sentence one gives a rule of thumb (so that, e.g., a playtest cleric gets level 1 and 2 subclass abilities from a previous book at level 3).
Sentence two recognizes there will be problems and inconsistencies.

So is it all hanging on sentence three: "If we publish the new version of the class, we’ll resolve that discrepancy"? That's pretty vague, if so, and certainly not enough to justify the concern seen here.

Yes, that and Crawford's comments in recent interviews. Je was asked point blamk.about Cleric and Wizard losing several Subclassez between PHBs, and cited that it's not.a big concern as 2014 Subclasses will still work with the new chassis.

I have yet to see any major cause of concern.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

Can the creatue use it the way the bard does? Giving it to another creature? It's not clear at all, there are tons of valid interpretations.

again my interpretation is the bard will have to choose to use a reaction to activate it (but not another die) based on them giving the bard the power to choose not the target, and it being called out as being the intent.

 

[Hussar]

Thank you everyone for clarifying. I had rather lost track.

So am I understanding this right? There is one bard subclass out of the ten or fifteen published subclasses that is potentially causing conflicts. That conflict can be resolved in a couple of clarifying sentences. Necessary but not particularly difficult. And this one inconsistency is proof that 2014 and 2024 DnD are incompatible?

Is that right?

 

[Faolyn]

Thank you everyone for clarifying. I had rather lost track.

So am I understanding this right? There is one bard subclass out of the ten or fifteen published subclasses that is potentially causing conflicts. That conflict can be resolved in a couple of clarifying sentences. Necessary but not particularly difficult. And this one inconsistency is proof that 2014 and 2024 DnD are incompatible?

Is that right?

That we know of so far.

Again, WotC is the company that brought us the Twilight Cleric and silvery barbs.

 

[Hussar]

That we know of so far.

Again, WotC is the company that brought us the Twilight Cleric and silvery barbs.

And yet no one seems to claim that twilight clerics are incompatible with 5e are representative of a new edition.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That we know of so far.

Again, WotC is the company that brought us the Twilight Cleric and silvery barbs.

While fair, I will point out that the only class we have not seen is the Monk. If there are any other subclasses that are incompatible, it should be obvious by now. After all, we HAVE all but one of the classes to look at.

Granted, we can expect changes from the Warlock and Druid at a minimum, but we can still look and see with what we have.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That we know of so far.

Again, WotC is the company that brought us the Twilight Cleric and silvery barbs.

So one subclass and one spell that are a bit overpowered out of how many?

They rather erred on the side of cautiousness...

That is quite some selection bias shown here.

 

[Remathilis]

That we know of so far.

Again, WotC is the company that brought us the Twilight Cleric and silvery barbs.

They also produced True Strike and Knight of the Purple Dragon.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That we know of so far.

Again, WotC is the company that brought us the Twilight Cleric and silvery barbs.

I've still never seen nor heard compelling evidence that either is problematic.

But even if they are...okay?

 

[Faolyn]

And yet no one seems to claim that twilight clerics are incompatible with 5e are representative of a new edition.

So one subclass and one spell that are a bit overpowered out of how many?

And you're missing my point, which is...

They also produced True Strike and Knight of the Purple Dragon.

This, that WotC very often produces stuff that is not tuned well. Didn't they they were fixing the monsters so they'd actually fit their listed CRs? Haven't people talked for years about how badly done monks and rangers are?

While fair, I will point out that the only class we have not seen is the Monk. If there are any other subclasses that are incompatible, it should be obvious by now. After all, we HAVE all but one of the classes to look at.

Granted, we can expect changes from the Warlock and Druid at a minimum, but we can still look and see with what we have.

True, but, we don't have the final product, just the playtest. They may change things even more. There may be other rules that we haven't seen that don't jibe well.

Or I could be wrong and everything will work out fine. I'll find a hat and eat it if that happens, but it could happen.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What about the other classes? Let's run it down.

I think we've well established that the Bard, at most, needs 1 or 2 sentences added to the new revised BI feature.

I can't see any issue with Rogues.

Fighters should be fine.

Barbarians aren't that different, should be fine.

Paladin can ranged smite, possibly. Okay.

The Druid and Circle of The Moon are weirded a bit with a scaling statblock, but we may not even see that tried again.

Ranger seems fine other than losing some flavor and the Hunter subclass being pretty lame.

Warlock's Class features don't interact directly enough with the Patron to really impact mixing class and subclass back and forth. Long rest spellcasting doesn't impact any of the patrons, far as I can tell.

Does anyone remember if the Cleric had any potential issues.? Sorcerer?

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

And yet no one seems to claim that twilight clerics are incompatible with 5e are representative of a new edition.

that is a subclass added to the cleric not a rewrite replaced cleric

 

[Parmandur]

Does anyone remember if the Cleric had any potential issues.? Sorcerer?

Sorcerer is totally fine.

Cleric splits up things a little differently, to seperate Domain from the choice between combat and Spell options (light armor and some extra Spellstuff versus Medium armor prof), to allow more combos, but not hard to configure. Might not be an issue when they put out the revised take (which I expect soon).

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

I've still never seen nor heard compelling evidence that either is problematic.

But even if they are...okay?

mostly twilight cleric is theory craft overpowered, and silvery barbs would be equal or slightly underpowered for a 3rd level spell. However powerful as 2nd level it ain't breaking a caster game.

Edit: never mind this spell is 1st I thought it was 2nd... for 1st it is way too powerful.

 

[Remathilis]

mostly twilight cleric is theory craft overpowered

I have a twilight cleric in my Ravenloft game, and I haven't found them to be OP. Strong, but not OP.