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.

 

[Umbran]

Why do you seem like someone inventing areas of disagreement just to avoid having to agree with someone?

Mod Note:
Can you please not make this personal?

If you don't like how the conversation is going, you don't have to reply to them at all. You can just walk away, or use the Ignore feature. You chose, instead, to take a personal potshot, to make this a question of someone else's character.

Given the potential that this will say much more about you than them, maybe next time you'll refrain from taking the shot.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You overinterpreted what I said. I never said the cat has to roll for athletics checks, nor did I know the exact situation you were in.

For the cat, trees are easy to climb as there are enough "handholds" for her claws. So no check. Perhaps more different for goats who are also known to be good climbers.

It is never a one fits all situation.

True, different situations end up with different needs. I was simply pointing out that it doesn't make a lot of sense to assume that a climb speed only means that they don't climb at half speed.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's not a punishment, it's a choice.

Is your character strong or not? If not, then don't put points into strength. If s/he is, put points into strength. But don't complain that the game punishes you for not putting points into strength.

If you are complaining that strength doesn't give you enough to choose it but then complain than your low strength character can't perform feats of strength, you are actually saying strength does give something worthwhile.

There is a difference between “doesn’t benefit a character enough to be worth it” and “has literally no benefit”.

It’s annoying that my acrobat character has the strength of a relatively fit bookworm (my PCs usually have 10 minimum, but this pc might have a 12 Str), but the system punishes putting points into strength as a PC that doesn’t use Str to attack.

In order to be decent at necessary stuff, the character can’t be good at stuff that thematically they should be good at.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

True, different situations end up with different needs. I was simply pointing out that it doesn't make a lot of sense to assume that a climb speed only means that they don't climb at half speed.

It was the rule you quoted.
But yes, the DM needs to adjucate the situations reasonably. Someone with claws does not need extra handholes.

Just taking away an ability because they are annoyed by it is not fair.

 

[Vaalingrade]

FALSE
Seriously, this drives me up the wall. Does no one actually read the rules of the game?!

I've been told repeatedly that having rules at all is bad and wrong, so why would I ever read the few that are there?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I agree that I don't think they need to be merged. I do still like the idea of many types of Difficult Terrain having an Athletics DC to ignore them. The idea of just ripping through brush, deep snow, mud, ect through your sheer strength, while other characters have to find other ways that slow them down appeals to me.

I also think that jumping and leaping is something that should be covered under Acrobatics. When we think of acrobatic archetypes and heroes, they are consistently leaping and performing, well, acrobatics. And yes, yes, I know that those things take strength, but so does picking a lock since it uses muscles and you need some muscle strength to do so. I think it is more useful to, instead of thinking of Strength as Muscles and Dexterity as NotMuscles, to think of them as different muscle groups. After all, this isn't the body type of a gymnast

View attachment 342330


And this isn't the body type of someone completely unathletic and unable to run or jump

View attachment 342328

But when you build these characters... it is highly likely that you aren't prioritizing all three physical stats. If it makes you feel better about your verisimilitude, just consider the average score between the three stats as a generic "how fit are they" score.

16, 13, 8 still averages to 12.3333 which is an above average physicality. And since we can't argue that anything uses your body doesn't require "strength" "precision" and "healthiness" all together, shrug it just seems like an issue where game mechanics can't quite neatly line up with both literary tropes and real-life.

You are probably correct.

But then the first one seems like high str + con, the second one like high dex, medium str and medium con.

Probably those stats need some regroupings. But it is rather difficult to do now.

I agree that dex includes some muscles.
And str probably includes some toughness. Being good at aiming with ranged weapons and catching them is hand eye coordination... difficult. Maybe another edition will distribute skills better.

Maybe athletics(str) and acrobatics(dex) are put together under movement(dex), while there is another skill power(str).
And endurance(con) makes a reappearance. I don't know. Not that easy. Maybe delete con alltogether as it was already proposed. Make str the rather passive stat and dex the active one. Use dex as a stat for all one handed weapons. And str only for two handed weapons.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It was the rule you quoted.
But yes, the DM needs to adjucate the situations reasonably. Someone with claws does not need extra handholes.

Just taking away an ability because they are annoyed by it is not fair.

I know it was the rule I quoted. I'll also point out that there is no way in the PHB for a PC to get a climb speed. Thieve's don't get a climb speed, they get an ability that says they don't need to treat climbing as double movement. And that, making it so that the climb speed does absolutely nothing else leads to odd and weird interactions that we don't want. So, yes, the DM needs to adjucate reasonably, and part of that is acknowledging that a climb speed might negate the need for a roll.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I've been told repeatedly that having rules at all is bad and wrong, so why would I ever read the few that are there?

Is this meant to be anything to respond to? Or are you just bitter other people told you things you don't like?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Edit: know what? I'm not here to catch strays over other people's arguments.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You are probably correct.

But then the first one seems like high str + con, the second one like high dex, medium str and medium con.

I disagree. That second character could have a medium con and low strength. Nothing about their body indicates they should have a strength higher than 10.

Probably those stats need some regroupings. But it is rather difficult to do now.

I can agree it would be difficult, but it certainly would fix the issue.