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.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Because you dismiss everything I say as irrelevant. So ot does not seem as you value opinions other than yours. And you showed you can't imagine that others have fun playing the game differently and have no problems with things that bother you. So why bother answering you.

I have never said that I can't imagine you are having fun or that the imbalance bothers you. Heck, the imbalance doesn't bother most of my players, that doesn't erase its existence or its impact on their choices.

You seem to just be making up positions that I've never held to dismiss my actual points.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I have never said that I can't imagine you are having fun or that the imbalance bothers you. Heck, the imbalance doesn't bother most of my players, that doesn't erase its existence or its impact on their choices.

You seem to just be making up positions that I've never held to dismiss my actual points.

See. I say the imbalance does not only bother me, I say there is not as big of an imbalance as you make it out to be. See, it is you who does not get what I say, not vice versa.

 

[tetrasodium]

I always wondered if removing Dexterity bonuses from weapon damage would be enough to rebalance the stats. Most of rogues' damage comes from sneak attack anyway. You can add a flat bonus to crossbows based on size. It would make a fighter using light melee weapons less viable if they dump strength completely so you might need a patch for that.

I suspect that many people arguing that Dex is the uber-stat would prefer to see the other stats boosted rather than Dex nerfed.

It would probably make a big dent. Dex was always better for skills than strength and at least as far back as 3.x dex based sc had some advantages that heavy armor strength based ac gave. The big difference was that there was the opportunity cost in the weapon finesse feat or lack of dex mod to damage.

Bows too had an importance with strength because mighty bows used it and we're how you added attribute mods to ranged attacks iirc.

 

[Mistwell]

A fix is deeper only when the problem is deeper: such as the six abilities failing to balance with each other − or function coherently − despite the entirety of the game depending on them.

The assumption that the problem is deeper is what I dispute.

There should be a lot more objective testing to see if there is a problem than what's done. Even if it's just polling of a decent sample size of players to see if they think it's a problem (not if they think Intelligence is underused relative to Dexterity but simply if they think it's an actual "deep problem" with the function of the game), that would at least be more objective than the methods more commonly used - which seem to amount to "I think this is a problem on paper in theory so lets make large fundamental changes to the game on that basis alone."

Here is the premise I start with: there is no good compelling reason why the six abilities need to balance with each other or function similar to each other. There are benefits to some being more niche than others and functioning different than others. Furthermore they've always been this way and I don't think there has been a decent Chesterton's Fence level analysis done to determine if the unbalance is intentional and beneficial.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Here is the premise I start with: there is no good compelling reason why the six abilities need to balance with each other or function similar to each other. There are benefits to some being more niche than others and functioning different than others. Furthermore they've always been this way and I don't think there has been a decent Chesterton's Fence level analysis done to determine if the unbalance is intentional and beneficial.

I agree. But for those that can benefit from a somewhat lesser used stat, the choice to have it higher than the mkre used stat is not to their detriment. And putting points in a lesser used stat is also not an error, as the reward might be bigger if you actually need them.

For example: any build can make good use of dexterity, wisdom and con*. But if your class can make use of str(heavy armors), it is not to their detriment to focus more on str than dex. Or if your casting stat is int or cha*, putting points there is no waste. It is always helpful to have someone who can recall knowledge or impress people.

*if I had to scratch one stat it would be con, and merge it with str, like @Horwath suggested.

*if I had to scrap another stat, it would be charisma and put most functionality in int. Maybe merge it to "wit", even though being good with people is not the same as book smart. But a few charisma and int based skills are interchangeble. And those, which are not can either be put into other categories:

Investigation (cha): get information by talking/knterrogating to people

Deception (int): outsmart them.

Performance (int): study a play
Performance (dex): acrobatics

Persuasion (int): make coherent statements that are convincing
Persuasion (wis) : sense what the others want.

Intimidation (str): crush an uncooked potatoe.
Intimidation (int): make very smart threats that are believable.

I think one gets the point.

 

[CapnZapp]

I still don't see the shift. AD&D rated dexterity very high.

I'm talking about the eleven(?) little tweaks that brought 5E closer towards Dex visavi Str; compared to 3E.

 

[CapnZapp]

So is the beef just that neither feat adds an actual mechanical bonus to jumping and climbing over and above training in athletics?

Still not talking about the feat. The feat gives an equal boost to anyone; it has no bearing upon what I'm discussing.

I'm talking about how both Athletics and Acrobatics (but mostly Acrobatics) leave you weirdly incompetent in maneuvers you should be world-class in. As if taking both was reasonable, which it isn't, since taking points in an ability that duplicates your offense is a waste.

Since the alternative is to just live with the weird gaps in your capability which would be a nagging irritant at best; the obvious and easy patch is to allow both Athletics and Acrobatics to function as your "heroic movement" skill!

 

[CapnZapp]

Text

I'm just gonna stop participating in your strange discussion, where you first maintain that the game is balanced for wildly random stat values, and then draw conclusions based on that bewildering assumption.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm talking about the eleven(?) little tweaks that brought 5E closer towards Dex visavi Str; compared to 3E.

I am still talking about AD&D 2nd edition. So maybe 3e was just an outlier...

 

[Mistwell]

I'm just gonna stop participating in your strange discussion, where you first maintain that the game is balanced for wildly random stat values, and then draw conclusions based on that bewildering assumption.

You don't need to tell me you're going to stop discussing things you find strange, confusing or perplexing. You just stop discussing it.