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.

 

[James Gasik]

Yes. That was the beginning of the quote which I gave in the post I linked. Now keep reading.


Says you. What does the DM say? I don't know, and neither do you, because this is a hypothetical circumstance you've invented, not an actual situation. Your DM might also say yes, but that's not the point.

It's the DM's call. Explicitly. "RAW" does not say you get to reroll, even in your hypothetical situation. It says it's the DM's call, and there are guidelines for when a yes and no is allowed.

So let's look at a locked door in a dungeon or forgotten tomb. You try to unlock it, the DM says you fail.

So you say "I'll try again" and the DM says no.

The question I suddenly ask is, how are any of the doors openable? Surely, we can't be the first people to ever try and unlock these doors. And if the doors become unlockable the instant someone tries and fails, and all the doors aren't already locked or unlocked by others, who is coming in here to fix all the broken locks?

And could you even fix the broken lock, if the DM is saying "well no, now that you've failed, you can't unlock the door" (I'm amused at the idea of asking to fix a lock so you can open it, lol).

I understand that, for balance reasons, letting people just keep trying means that there's no real risk of failure, in which case either you shouldn't be asking for rolls, or forcing you to have some other penalty (time or wandering monsters are common, though a Thief can make a Thieves' Tools check as a bonus action, which might make that approach moot). But if you're concern is to maintain verisimilitude, you'll have to put some real thought in here about how "one shot locks" affect the narrative.

 

[Kobold Stew]

So let's look at a locked door in a dungeon or forgotten tomb. You try to unlock it, the DM says you fail.

So you say "I'll try again" and the DM says no.

The question I suddenly ask is, how are any of the doors openable? Surely, we can't be the first people to ever try and unlock these doors. And if the doors become unlockable the instant someone tries and fails, and all the doors aren't already locked or unlocked by others, who is coming in here to fix all the broken locks?

And could you even fix the broken lock, if the DM is saying "well no, now that you've failed, you can't unlock the door" (I'm amused at the idea of asking to fix a lock so you can open it, lol).

I understand that, for balance reasons, letting people just keep trying means that there's no real risk of failure, in which case either you shouldn't be asking for rolls, or forcing you to have some other penalty (time or wandering monsters are common, though a Thief can make a Thieves' Tools check as a bonus action, which might make that approach moot). But if you're concern is to maintain verisimilitude, you'll have to put some real thought in here about how "one shot locks" affect the narrative.

And none of this is about "Rules as Written".

What constitutes verisimilitude for you and your players or me and mine are completely separate things. Will we agree? We might. I'm not talking about the decisions I make as a DM or what I expect as a player -- they're relevant to the thread, but in this case I'm not trying to persuade you (or anyone) that my way of playing is more verisimilitudionous than theirs.

Are there problems with the skill system? Absolutely. And I know how I play things so it works at my table. But I'm not trying to force that on anyone -- not on you, not on @Mirrorrorrim . But I'm also not saying my personal solution is "Rules As Written".

 

[tetrasodium]

So let's look at a locked door in a dungeon or forgotten tomb. You try to unlock it, the DM says you fail.

So you say "I'll try again" and the DM says no.

The question I suddenly ask is, how are any of the doors openable? Surely, we can't be the first people to ever try and unlock these doors. And if the doors become unlockable the instant someone tries and fails, and all the doors aren't already locked or unlocked by others, who is coming in here to fix all the broken locks?

And could you even fix the broken lock, if the DM is saying "well no, now that you've failed, you can't unlock the door" (I'm amused at the idea of asking to fix a lock so you can open it, lol).

I understand that, for balance reasons, letting people just keep trying means that there's no real risk of failure, in which case either you shouldn't be asking for rolls, or forcing you to have some other penalty (time or wandering monsters are common, though a Thief can make a Thieves' Tools check as a bonus action, which might make that approach moot). But if you're concern is to maintain verisimilitude, you'll have to put some real thought in here about how "one shot locks" affect the narrative.

Depends on how you are trying to pick the lock.

Snap a tool inside in a way that you can't extract under current circumstances? Oops.... there's no good nondestructive way of correcting it short of obtaining the tools to remove the broken bit (personally or someone else doing it for you/the lock owner)

Discover after the fact that you triggered a trap pin or similar? oops.. kinda hard to try again if you need to unlock & disassemble/reassemble the lock

Trigger some other failsafe like the arcane equivalent of a maglock?... oops.... the magnet in a maglock engages a physical lock so it's probably still locked if you can dispel magic on it. Those are usually required by firecode to failsafe in the event of an alarm but d&d worlds don't exactly have firecodes likely to apply to the average dungeon or trapped door

You could also include the lock being rusty corroded or otherwise clogged in a way that now makes it unworkable because of your failure.

More importantly the GM should not be expected to personally know how to pick a lock & know enough about doing so in order to answer that question because the GM gets to decide if you can make a check & simply saying no you tried but failed in some form is all that is needed

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Yes. That was the beginning of the quote which I gave in the post I linked. Now keep reading.


Says you. What does the DM say? I don't know, and neither do you, because this is a hypothetical circumstance you've invented, not an actual situation. Your DM might also say yes, but that's not the point.

It's the DM's call. Explicitly. "RAW" does not say you get to reroll, even in your hypothetical situation. It says it's the DM's call, and there are guidelines for when a yes and no is allowed.

What are you on about? I do know the scenario because Mistwell set it up, and I answered. The scenario was presented as such: "How many shots do you get at picking a lock in your games? If the DC is 30, and you have a +10 modifier, do you just let them keep trying until they roll a 20?" There were no other extenuating circumstances provided. Now the DM could create a circumstance like "if you fail, the lock mechanism becomes permanently fused and you can't keep trying" but such an extenuating circumstance is not part of the scenario. The scenario existed to ask if rerolling would be allowed at all.

As for the RAW, it states: "Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task."

That is the basic assumption of the rule. If there is nothing stopping you, you get to keep going and with enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed if they can.

Yes, the RAW continues in the same section: "In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again. For example, a rogue might try to trick a town guard into thinking the adventurers are undercover agents of the king. If the rogue loses a contest of Charisma (Deception) against the guard's Wisdom (Insight), the same lie told again won't work."

That shows a specific, reasonable example where the first section isn't true. But there needs to be a reason.

To quote an awesome person: "I get that you don't like the rules, but you don't get to make up what they say to support your argument."

 

[Pauln6]

Okay.

The root problem is with what each ability score does/is used for, how ability modifiers work, and the general lack of intentionality in the rules.

Strength adding to damage with all weapons could help, but so would better defining athletics and acrobatics.

Yes you can add options that help, but they have to be additional, not the whole solution. Giving Rogues an optional “Enforcer” feature that makes strength more beneficial to them is cool, but if Strength isn’t generally useful the character is still making a bad deal for the sake of flavor, rather than the rules supporting the flavor.

As someone who played versions where Dex didn't add to damage, I would be fine with this albeit many optimisers who extol the superiority of Dex builds might be very unhappy.

I certainly think the 5e skill system could do with more example skill tests. One think I recall from 3e Living Greyhawk was that the modules considered different ways to meet the same result e.g. Investigation to locate a pit trap from a careful search might be a DC10 intelligence check but spotting it from a more cursory scan might be a DC15 wisdom check. Gaining information from an official using flattery might be a DC15 Charisma Persuasion check, using trickery a DC18 Charisma Deception check but using Bureacracy might be a DC10 Intelligence History check.

So certain feats of acrobatics might be doable using different techniques and might be a DC10 Dexterity Acrobatics but a DC15 Strength Athletics check.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

How many shots do you get at picking a lock in your games? If the DC is 30, and you have a +10 modifier, do you just let them keep trying until they roll a 20?

In our games, you get one shot for each set of circumstances. So circumstances must change for you to try a second time. An example could be you try normally and miss. Then the cleric casts Guidance on you, which is a change in circumstance, and you can try a second time. A third circumstance change could be someone using the aid-another, provided they have proficiency in the skill or tool as well.

So you don't play by the actual rules... This is good to know when talking aboit balance of the game.

In 3e, it took a time to realize that lock picking was expected to just use take 20. And suddenly a lot of preassure was taken from the rogue. And people with cross class skills suddenly could reasonably use their abilities in a useful manner.

No rogue? We don't get in within seconds, but give us some time and it works.

And as a very unproficient lockpicker: I have picked a regular lock with two paper clips and a you tube video for help and enough time (take 20). And now I have a hobby lockpicking set and practiced a bit and I can open a simple lock way faster, but not always in an instant (bonus not high enough to take 10, but good enough to make it somewhat reliable). Not once has my previously failed attempt prevented me from trying again with the hobby picks. Even my paperclips only broke once or twice.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

As we've discussed before, this is wrong. The rules as written do not say this.

I get that you don't like the rules, but you don't get to make up what they say to support your argument.

Yes, your pick can break. But usually it does not.

 

[Mistwell]

Yes, if the lockpicker has invested to get a +10 to their roll, and they have a chance to succeed, they get to keep rolling. It just takes time. And we don't allow Nat 20 successes on skill checks.

If I have invested expertise to get a +17 to my lockpicking, and the DC is 20, and I fail, RAW says I get to roll again. If the DM says that I don't get to roll again, welp, that's their prerogative. It would bug me that all that investment is worthless and I can't keep working the lock.

You're only supposed to roll if there is a meaningful chance of failure. If you're guaranteed to succeed provided you spend a minute doing it out of combat, then you don't roll and can just do it. But your system of rolling until you get a 20 means there is no chance to fail. You're reinstated the prior rules systems Take-20 rule. Which I don't think is unreasonable, but it's not a 5e rule in the books.

When does one lock pick attempt end and another begin, given the nature of picking a lock? For me, the player doesn't know the DC. They just know if they succeed or fail. And if they fail, that's the point where the PC is thinking that lock is beyond their skills at the moment, unless they get some other kind of boost. It's why they stop, and defines the attempt ending.

Now if you have a +17, I'd be fine giving you a passive skill check to succeed on a DC 20 without even a roll. I don't think DMs use passive skills for skills outside perception, insight and investigation enough. If a player has a bonus to a skill check so high that a roll of a 10 would be such that they'd easily pass the challenge, it's not a challenge and just let them succeed.

But we're talking about locks which are at the very edge of your luck. Where you need to roll higher than a 10 to succeed, maybe even a 20. If you need to roll a 20 to succeed and you don't, it's both incredibly boring to let one player just keep rolling until they get a 20, and doesn't fit the system which only calls for a roll to begin with because you had a meaningful chance of failure.

 

[Mistwell]

So you don't play by the actual rules...

1) I do.
2) Stop being rude. Please. Nothing in this conversation has been aggressive or calls for that tone, so why start? Or maybe someone else was aggressive and you thought I was part of that?

You roll when there is a chance of failure - if you are guaranteed success provided you spend a minute, there is no check called for in 5e. I was discussing circumstances where a roll was called for. In which case, the "spend as much time as you like" rule which says you simply succeed if you take 10 times as long wasn't used by the player. They opted to roll, which means failure is failure. Instead they can opt for taking ten times as long and not roll.

Now maybe you disagree with my view of the rules, but that's as much the actual rules as written as another view of them.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

1) I do.
2) Stop being rude. Please. Nothing in this conversation has been aggressive or calls for that tone, so why start?

There is no Take-20 in 5e. You roll when there is a chance of failure - if you are guaranteed success provided you spend a minute, there is no check called for in 5e.

Now maybe you disagree with my view of the rules, but that's as much the actual rules as written as another view of them, and the rules surely do not provide for a take-20 like you're implying they do.

Ok. Why do you think I was aggressive?
I just said, that the rules don't provide support for not allowing retries for picking locks. That is also a different edition.
Page 237 of the DM's guide tells us so.

No, here is no take 20. Here the rules just say that of there is no chance of failure, you eventually succeed if you are capable of succeeding and have enough time (10 times the normal time). Which is take 20 in spirit.