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.

 

[Yaarel]

Strength is agility.

Strength can throw spears accurately, curve baseballs amazingly, aim swords agily, wrestle adroitly, climb (thus balance), leap (thus fall), run speedily, swim gracefully, etcetera.

Strength is every form of agility, mobility and athletics.

Reallife considerations relating to gross motor skills and the need for mechanical coherency and viability must make Strength (Athletics) the one-stop go-to to invest in for every mobility challenge and body stunt. Especially, everything ripped away by nonsensical "Acrobatics" must be Strength (Athletics).

 

[Yaarel]

Sometimes it is frustrating to discuss things with grognards, because some of them can be so attatched to a bizarre unhelpful "tradition" to the point of absurdity.

For the Athletics skill to cover all things "athletic" is obvious.

The mechanical need for Strength to be more functional as a stand alone option versus the overpowered Dexterity is worthwhile.

 

[Yaarel]

Dexterity is fine motor skills.

Things that benefit from a steady hand and from slow cautious precision, can benefit from Dexterity.

The Sleight of Hand skill that currently only handles pickpocketing and similar should apply to anything that requires precision, including lockpicking, disarming traps, adding a potion ingredient or carving a sigil perfectly, and so on. One can even rename the skill Precision. Or more clearly define Sleight this way.

Where Athletics can run across tree branches as a body stunt (I have done similar in reallife), Sleight can inch across it slowly and precisely.

Stealth is a specialized application of Sleight.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If you are absolutely certain that there is only one way to achieve what you want then just do that in your game. Acrobatics is an amalgam of the 3e tumbling and balance skills and there were discussions about trimming the skill list before they did it partly because there were not enough skill points to go around I.e. the same argument you are raising now in relation to the separate skills.

E.g. https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/d-d-3-5-consolidating-the-skills-list.327686/

All you are advocating, presumably, is to amalgamate some more so that all traditional rogue skills are rolled into one dex-based skill so that all rogues, and anyone else who trains in that one skill, are good at the thieves' abilities from 1e plus jumping and acrobatics with no ancillary investment in stats and skills?

It won't break the game, albeit it will lead to rogues being quite samey with the exception of subclass abilities and other classes with fewer skill options also becoming good at the same skills as rogues. That puts me off it tbh because I like players to have choices, even suboptimal ones, and I like there being different ways to achieve a desired result e.g. expertise in Athletics, Investigation, or Perception to overcome a low strength, intelligence, or wisdom scores, or stat investment in relevant skills, or feats, or subclass abilities.

If none of the existing options are enough for you, just change your game.

Um, no.

I’m advocating structuring the game so that Dex based characters can afford to have high enough strength that they do so primarily for thematic reasons without becoming noticeably weaker in combat.

 

[Pauln6]

Um, no.

I’m advocating structuring the game so that Dex based characters can afford to have high enough strength that they do so primarily for thematic reasons without becoming noticeably weaker in combat.

I think I understand the broad gist of what you are saying but none of the specifics. I think I don't understand how putting points in strength makes a character noticeably weaker in combat. It enhances strength-based options that may not be optimal (partly because some of them already key off dex as well as strength) but it still carries benefits. If you roll your stats, you just have to make a choice how to prioritise them, so you have less control than points buy but you still have to prioritise either way and that means giving up on putting points elsewhere.

So if a feat, a class feature, and alterations to the skills aren't what you want to plug this perceived gap, what would work for you?

If a rogue prioritises wisdom, they will be better at spotting obvious traps and ambushes but will be less athletic, have less hit points, be worse at cracking codes, researching targets, and disarming complex or magical traps, and be less persuasive.

If a rogue prioritises intelligence, they will be better at cracking codes, researching targets, and disarming complex or magical traps, but will have less hit points, be less able to spot obvious traps and ambushes, be less athletic, and be less persuasive.

A rogue who prioritising strength will be more athletic, better able to rely on improvised weapons, better able to break into arcane locked areas but have less hit points, be worse at cracking codes, researching targets, and disarming complex or magical traps, be less able to spot obvious traps and ambushes, and be less persuasive.

Are you saying that rogue abilities should be siloed like in 1e so their abilities are all tied to dexterity but also to rogue levels rather than character level? If not, can you explain how you would like to achieve your goal in practical terms rather than just as a broad wish?

 

[Vikingkingq]

Well, it's an opportunity cost thing, isn't it? With all the best will in the world, a Rogue gets far less mileage out of a point invested in Strength than they would investing it in Wisdom or Intelligence, and to change that would require more profound changes than just how skills are grouped.

 

[Pauln6]

Well, it's an opportunity cost thing, isn't it? With all the best will in the world, a Rogue gets far less mileage out of a point invested in Strength than they would investing it in Wisdom or Intelligence, and to change that would require more profound changes than just how skills are grouped.

Yes but that's the point. It's easy to point to the flaw but what's the solution? I was just looking at Level Up and there are some interesting efforts to beef up the benefits from strength. Basic combat manoeuvres inflict damage based off your strength score so a tumble manoeuvre requires you to make a dexterity save to move through an opponent's square (with a bonus if trained in Acrobatics) whereas an overrun requires you to make a strength save but also inflicts damage. Grappling, Shoving, Knockdown, Disarming all inflict strength-based damage and these might be considered tactical options if a rogue is not in a position to use sneak attack on their turn.

Level Up also gives examples when alternate ability scores might be appropriate e.g. A character might use Dexterity to climb a smooth wall for a short distance (parkour) or to jump onto a moving creature. While jumping is still based on your strength score, they suggest using a Acrobatics check to avoid falling prone if landing in difficult terrain.

These look like quite subtle adjustments that do at least touch on some of the concerns raised previously.

 

[Chaosmancer]

We only ever used the full encumbrance rules in 1e but in that edition armour had a significant effect on movement, being halved for those wearing plate mail. It's much easier to just apply a simple penalty to movement of say 5' for medium armour and 10' for heavy armour but you could say jump distance is based on strength minus your armour AC bonus. You could require an armoured character to make a swim check even in quiet water with the DC being your AC bonus. So your strength 10 acrobat in leather armour would have a base jump distance of 9 feet, your strength 20 fighter in plate Mail would have a base jump of 12 feet. That doesn't sound that unrealistic. I've never liked the absence of rules to let you jump that bit further but I might just let players roll Athletics (or Acrobatics in appropriate circumstaces if you are that way inclined) and add the score in inches to to your roll which could add up to 4 feet to a jump (natural 20, expertise, level 20).

A: Hey, what do we want strength characters to do?

B: They should be able to wear really thick and heavy armor, in fact, lets penalize anyone with low strength who tries to wear it. That will help make high strength characters feel really different and special in combat.

A: I like that. What else should they do?

B: They should be the best at climbing, swimming and jumping!

A: That's great, in fact. woah, dude, brain wave! What if we made everyone who wears the thick heavy armor that only high strength characters wear take penalties to climbing, swimming and jumping that high strength characters are the best at! That way the low strength characters without those penalties do almost as good!


Yeah, again... no? Why would we ever want this? Seriously, I know that technically the light armored rogue is jumping 3 less feet than the heavy armored fighter, but when the majority of the game works in increments of 5, you have practically made them identical.

And guess what, High Strength characters suck at range. Guess what happens when you have a character with a -10 movement speed? They have trouble getting into melee and will spend more time fighting at range... which a high strength character is BAD AT DOING.

Seriously, all these rules are doing is punishing high strength characters for attempting to take the actions high strength characters do. I get you think it is "more realistic" but just like it might be more realistic to make daily con saves versus gangrene and dysentery, all you are accomplishing is punishing people. But only in a way that makes it harder for Strength-based characters to be effective.

That's not quite true. If you practice yoga you will learn that muscle strength is as important to balance as much as your sense of balance. The ability scores have always overlapped though, with strength representing a degree of physical fitness, and constitution representing a degree of mental fortitude.

This seems like a complete non-sequitur to the rest of the post?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes but that's the point. It's easy to point to the flaw but what's the solution?

Well, the solution to Rogues not being able to move around the battlefield like some people want could be as simple as altering the movement rules to allow people to move in more dynamic ways.

Honestly, DnD combat is so pathetically static at times. Even in 5e, where people finally have the freedom to break up their movement and attack as they wish... most people run up and stop next an enemy, then stay in that exact spot while the enemies try to bury them in waves. No fight is choreographed that way, because it is boring.

Now, maybe that isn't a solution that accomplishes your goals. But it is a solution to the proposed problem.

I was just looking at Level Up and there are some interesting efforts to beef up the benefits from strength. Basic combat manoeuvres inflict damage based off your strength score so a tumble manoeuvre requires you to make a dexterity save to move through an opponent's square (with a bonus if trained in Acrobatics) whereas an overrun requires you to make a strength save but also inflicts damage. Grappling, Shoving, Knockdown, Disarming all inflict strength-based damage and these might be considered tactical options if a rogue is not in a position to use sneak attack on their turn.

Level Up also gives examples when alternate ability scores might be appropriate e.g. A character might use Dexterity to climb a smooth wall for a short distance (parkour) or to jump onto a moving creature. While jumping is still based on your strength score, they suggest using a Acrobatics check to avoid falling prone if landing in difficult terrain.

These look like quite subtle adjustments that do at least touch on some of the concerns raised previously.

This... doesn't address any of that. Yes, these can be ways to improve strength, but you are missing a fundamental point. Let us say you need a DC 12, and you could roll a +7 or a +3 and deal a little damage... you roll the +7 every time. And if you have the choice between making that +3 you rarely ever bother to us a +4, or improving literally every single thing you are relied upon to accomplish and your entire kit... you improve everything.

And, while you may not like it, we need to acknowledge that unlike every other skill pairing, strength and dexterity are in direct competition. A character may choose to broaden their abilities by increasing wisdom or charisma, or make themselves tougher with con, but increasing strength only gives them options in combat that run directly counter to the things they already want to do. You are saying they could take all these tactical options if they CAN'T use sneak attack... but if they are in melee and not able to use sneak attack, the rogue has made a mistake. And it isn't a mistake they can fix by making a weaker attack that is less likely to hit.

 

[Yaarel]

B: They should be able to wear really thick and heavy armor, in fact, lets penalize anyone with low strength who tries to wear it. That will help make high strength characters feel really different and special in combat.

B: They should be the best at climbing, swimming and jumping!

As long as the armor is clearly within the encumbrance weight: it might make more sense for armor to have a Constitution prereq rather than a Strength prereq. This would distinguish between those who invest in agility (climb, jump, swim) versus those who invest in "heavy infantry" (high hit points, heavy armor).