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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

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


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?


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.
What kind of hat?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Chaosmancer

Legend
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.

Right, you don't know. Saying "but they could change it and make it worse" while also saying "see, look at this bad thing in the playtest" is no different than "but they could change it and make it better" while saying "see, look at this great thing in the playtest". You are just looking for what you want. Point in case.

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


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?

You said previously "this is the company that gave us the Twilight Cleric and Silvery Barbs." And sure, they did (though I've never had a problem with either), but they are also the company that gave us the Vengeance Paladin and Magic Missile.

Someone else said that they were the company that gave us The Purple Dragon Knight, well, they are also the company that gave us the Ancestral Spirit Barbarian. The Ranger was pretty weak in 5e? True, but have you looked over the One DnD Ranger? It is a whole different beast and quite good overall.

Sure, they don't always get everything right, and especially not the first time. But... overall they do a good job. The fact we can complain about this subclass or that subclass, or this monster which is out of tune instead of just declaring the entire mess unplayable? It means that the majority of it is fine. So yes, you can predict that One DnD will utterly fail, that everything in it will be bad. But it likely won't. The Majority of it will be good. Will they make some misstep, somewhere? Of course. But the majority of things people seem to be latching onto are small things, and/or things that WoTC seems very much aware of. So, if we are going to gamble on the results, why assume it will end up in the 15% of the bad stuff, instead of the 70% of the perfectly fine stuff?
 

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


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?

Which was a conscious decision to not errata the books every few month.

The ranger and monk were good enough in actual play. Especially after Tasha upgrades.

So when someone say, Wotc make an unbalanced game, I only see those few examples over and ove again. Which in the grand scheme is not a lot.

So the game overall is quite well balanced... I am still imoressed that noone in 10 years in my groups has complained about having a weak character and I as a DM have never felt that my monsters are not working good enough.


So I don't understand what your point is. Or better your point is indeed a very little point in a wide plane.
 


Which was a conscious decision to not errata the books every few month.

The ranger and monk were good enough in actual play. Especially after Tasha upgrades.

Meeeeeeh. The Monk has been alright, it's biggest constraint was locking so many good things behind ki, which it never had enough of. My way around that was just adding one's proficiency bonus to their ki pool. I will say the Fizban model for monks was interesting, though I really think each monk class (and classes/subclasses in general) should have gimmicks that don't require resources so that you always have them.

Rangers, though... the Ranger as a model was just never good and while it may have made it playable, that is an incredibly low design bar to hold. Remember that they got enough feedback that, early on, they were looking to fix an entire class because it was just utterly bad. Even with Tasha's fixes (which come 6 years into the game), still not great.

So when someone say, Wotc make an unbalanced game, I only see those few examples over and ove again. Which in the grand scheme is not a lot.

So the game overall is quite well balanced... I am still imoressed that noone in 10 years in my groups has complained about having a weak character and I as a DM have never felt that my monsters are not working good enough.

So I don't understand what your point is. Or better your point is indeed a very little point in a wide plane.

Your experience is different than mine. I've seen, in particular, the power of casters exceed that of martials pretty consistently, and especially when it comes to certain powerful abilities. I've actively moved people away from certain subclasses (Elemental Monk, Berzerker Barbarian) or even classes (Fighter, Ranger).

Now what gives me a lot of positivity is that I think they have at least done better on a lot of those in the playtest. The Berzerker especially is just a way better, way more interesting version of the first one. They haven't done as well with everything (the Fighter is still very uninspiring), but let's not forget that they are likely doing this because the game is in desperate need of some of the fixes that they have avoided giving for many years. The game is unbalanced, but it still playable and can certainly still be fun as well. But this game isn't particularly well-tuned, and I feel like that is part of the point sometimes.
 

Horwath

Legend
That we know of so far.

Again, WotC is the company that brought us the Twilight Cleric and silvery barbs.
Silvery barbs is a powerful spell, but not gamebreaking.


Twilight sanctuary puts Inspiring leader feat into category of bonus tool proficiency so that is overpowered.
 

Now what gives me a lot of positivity is that I think they have at least done better on a lot of those in the playtest. The Berzerker especially is just a way better, way more interesting version of the first one. They haven't done as well with everything (the Fighter is still very uninspiring), but let's not forget that they are likely doing this because the game is in desperate need of some of the fixes that they have avoided giving for many years. The game is unbalanced, but it still playable and can certainly still be fun as well. But this game isn't particularly well-tuned, and I feel like that is part of the point sometimes.
I agree with most points. I also see theoretical imbalance. But at the table, people are feeling that they are doing a lot to help the party. Even the ranger. Even the monk.
Even though wizards have more abilities to help the party it is sometimes a burden. They have to do do this, while fighters and rogues can play as they like.

I think the game is quite well tuned*. Perfectly playable. But still having some imbalances that are probably partially necessary in the D&D genre.


*i have played games where some character classes were totally useless in adventures. Sometimes even the wizards, because designers felt that spells are so powerful that spellcasters only have a low chance to actually cast them without killing themselves...
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I agree with most points. I also see theoretical imbalance. But at the table, people are feeling that they are doing a lot to help the party. Even the ranger. Even the monk.
Even though wizards have more abilities to help the party it is sometimes a burden. They have to do do this, while fighters and rogues can play as they like.

I think the game is quite well tuned*. Perfectly playable. But still having some imbalances that are probably partially necessary in the D&D genre.


*i have played games where some character classes were totally useless in adventures. Sometimes even the wizards, because designers felt that spells are so powerful that spellcasters only have a low chance to actually cast them without killing themselves...
What games were these? Sounds interesting.
 

The ranger and monk were good enough in actual play. Especially after Tasha upgrades.
it almost feels like 2 balanced games...

like you take monk, fighter, barbarian, rogue (remove caster subclasses) and make the ranger and paladin the main casters MAYBE warlock or artificer you have some well balanced but not perfect classes.
If you take wizard, cleric, druid, bard, warlock, artificer with the paladin getting a slight boost and the ranger being given a bit of a boost you have okay balanced classes that more or less let you play the same...
the issue is when the default game is a fighter a rogue a cleric and a wizard you are playing at 2 different levels.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top