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.

 

[tetrasodium]

If a DM made me roll 45 times until I finally got that natural 20 rather than just saying, "It takes you a while, but the lock eventually opens", I'd walk out of the game.

Maybe you enjoy that sort of game torture. People are into all sorts of things, but it's absolutely "badwrongfun" for me.

If I as a player had to watch another player rolling 45 times to get a nat20 on a locked door/chest/etc it better be while I'm being paid to sit there or I'm probably not going to still be there by the time roll 45 comes around.

 

[Maxperson]

That is totally not what I wrote. You failed your reading check. Please roll again to read it fast ad correct or just take a bit more time.

This was the conversation.

Me: No DM with a grain of salt is going to sit there and make you roll 45 times if it's inevitably going to open. There would be no roll and you open it.

You: Asserting that "no DM with a grain of salt" would do X is not better than calling something "badwrongfun".

Me: If a DM made me roll 45 times until I finally got that natural 20 rather than just saying, "It takes you a while, but the lock eventually opens", I'd walk out of the game.

That was the context. Being made to roll 45 times rather than just saying no roll and opening the lock. That would be absolute torture for everyone I have ever gamed with and would be badwrongfun for me.

And I stand by the grain of salt comment. I don't think that a mediocre or better DM is going to make someone roll 45 times to open a lock that will inevitably be unlocked. Especially when RAW is to not have a roll under those circumstances.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Not really. Again, it's a matter of perspective.

For a lot of tables, that 2 isn't bad luck for the PC. The PC is giving it his best effort when trying to open the lock. That 2 doesn't represent him being absent minded or just plain crappy with this attempt. It represents that his best effort to open that lock just wasn't anywhere near good enough and the lock is beyond him.

You don't use that perspective, but it is a valid way to play and it is supposed by GAW(guidelines as written) which allows the DM to declare a retry to be impossible.

So your last post before that where you failed to understand what I wrote was your best effort?
I had assumed you just skimmed over too fast and rolled a natural 1 on your check.
So I now assume you just read it again, taking your time.

Hint:
I never said I'd let you roll for 45 mins until you get a nat 20.

 

[Maxperson]

So your last post before that where you failed to understand what I wrote was your best effort?
I had assumed you just skimmed over too fast and rolled a natural 1 on your check.
So I now assume you just read it again, taking your time.

Hint:
I never said I'd let you roll for 45 mins until you get a nat 20.

You keep ignoring what we are saying. What I responded with is why people deny rerolls. The one roll is the best effort and nothing else can be better than your best.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This was the conversation.

Me: No DM with a grain of salt is going to sit there and make you roll 45 times if it's inevitably going to open. There would be no roll and you open it.

You: Asserting that "no DM with a grain of salt" would do X is not better than calling something "badwrongfun".

Me: If a DM made me roll 45 times until I finally got that natural 20 rather than just saying, "It takes you a while, but the lock eventually opens", I'd walk out of the game.

That was the context. Being made to roll 45 times rather than just saying no roll and opening the lock. That would be absolute torture for everyone I have ever gamed with and would be badwrongfun for me.

And I stand by the grain of salt comment. I don't think that a mediocre or better DM is going to make someone roll 45 times to open a lock that will inevitably be unlocked. Especially when RAW is to not have a roll under those circumstances.

Failed again. I said: after a failure in a first try, nothing in the rules prevents you from still having an auto success for a slightly worse result.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You keep ignoring what we are saying. What I responded with is why people deny rerolls. The one roll is the best effort and nothing else can be better than your best.

And you keep ignoring what I said: you can still roll again if you want. But usually after your first failure, going for an auto success is mostly good enough.

But there are also situations, where rollkng again could make sense.

Maybe you are locked behind a door. Your party is attacked and now you have to get through with a DC 10 check. You have a +5 bonus. So it might make sense to try again if you rolled a 1 on your first try.

We have such situations. 2014 has grapple rules that are based on that concept. You can try to escape as often as you like despite circumstances not changing.

Do you deny rolling again to escape grapple (against a monster with a static DC) because the PC failed once?

Here is the roper ability for reference:

Grasping Tendrils. The roper can have up to six tendrils at a time. Each tendril can be attacked (AC 20; 10 hit points; immunity to poison and psychic damage). Destroying a tendril deals no damage to the roper, which can extrude a replacement tendril on its next turn. A tendril can also be broken if a creature takes an action and succeeds on a DC 15 Strength check against it.

 

[Maxperson]

Failed again. I said: after a failure in a first try, nothing in the rules prevents you from still having an auto success for a slightly worse result.

RAW does actually prevent that. You do not roll if the outcome is not in doubt, which means if there is an autosuccess in there, then there is no first roll. If you roll at all, then that automatically means that there is no autosucess to be had by RAW, since you ONLY roll if the outcome is in doubt.

You can certainly houserule that after the first roll when the outcome was in doubt that magically now there's no chance of failure, but that's not RAW.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

RAW does actually prevent that. You do not roll if the outcome is in doubt, which means if there is an autosucess in there, then there is no first roll. If you roll at all, then that automatically means that there is no autosucess to be had by RAW, since you ONLY roll if the outcome is in doubt.

You can certainly houserule that after the first roll when the outcome was in doubt that magically now there's no chance of failure, but that's not RAW.

Ok. So after a PC failed the escape check against a roper, they are stuck forever, because that was the best effort RAW?

Grasping Tendrils. The roper can have up to six tendrils at a time. Each tendril can be attacked (AC 20; 10 hit points; immunity to poison and psychic damage). Destroying a tendril deals no damage to the roper, which can extrude a replacement tendril on its next turn. A tendril can also be broken if a creature takes an action and succeeds on a DC 15 Strength check against it.

Nothing says, you can retry it each turn.

 

[Maxperson]

And you keep ignoring what I said: you can still roll again if you want. But usually after your first failure, going for an auto success is mostly good enough.

But there are also situations, where rollkng again could make sense.

Which is a fine house rule, but it's not how I play it. I follow RAW where no roll is had unless the outcome is in doubt, and that's not going to change or I wouldn't have had a roll in the first place.

We have such situations. 2014 has grapple rules that are based on that concept. You can try to escape as often as you like despite circumstances not changing.

Specific beats general. The specific grapple rules do that. As do specific spells which allow saves every round. The general rule, though, is that ability checks are not rolled for unless the outcome(end result) is in doubt.

Do you deny rolling again to escape grapple (against a monster with a static DC) because the PC failed once?

Why would I deny a Specific Beats General situation? The grapple rules, unlike the ability check rules in the PHB, specifically allow multiple checks.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

RAW does actually prevent that. You do not roll if the outcome is not in doubt, which means if there is an autosuccess in there, then there is no first roll. If you roll at all, then that automatically means that there is no autosucess to be had by RAW, since you ONLY roll if the outcome is in doubt.

You can certainly houserule that after the first roll when the outcome was in doubt that magically now there's no chance of failure, but that's not RAW.

Oh. And circumstances can change without magic... this is called: take a step back and stop trying to do something with haste.

Did you never try to jump hastily over something 20 cm high and triped because you wanted to reach the bus? Then you just take your time jump over it and take the next which sadly takes 15 minutes more to take you home?

Has nothing to do with magic.