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.



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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

In official WOTC adventures there seems to be multiple challenges that only a high strength character can surpass barring very strong magic. A lid of something, a portcullis, a slab door, something always seems to be in the way that requires a high strength character.
But those are just official noob adventures. Not representative for good players. There every STR challenge can be surpassed with either a good feat of DEX or WIS, or INT if they happen to be a wizard. Or somehow a cantrip can be used for that.

*not my actual opinion. Quite the opposite.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

But those are just official noob adventures. Not representative for good players.
That is silly. WOTC's surveys show a majority of people use the official adventures. I've played since 1979 and we've only used published adventures from WOTC for 5e for 9 of the 10 years we've been playing it. None of us are noobs - all of us have decades of experience and are good players.

If you think adventures from WOTC are just for noobs and not representative of good players, produce any evidence supporting that claim.
There every STR challenge can be surpassed with either a good feat of DEX or WIS, or INT if they happen to be a wizard. Or somehow a cantrip can be used for that.
I completely disagree. None of those other stats help with those challenges, and no cantrip can help either. There is magic that can help, but none of that is cantrip type.
 

That is silly. WOTC's surveys show a majority of people use the official adventures. I've played since 1979 and we've only used published adventures from WOTC for 5e for 9 of the 10 years we've been playing it. None of us are noobs - all of us have decades of experience and are good players.

If you think adventures from WOTC are just for noobs and not representative of good players, produce any evidence supporting that claim.

I completely disagree. None of those other stats help with those challenges, and no cantrip can help either. There is magic that can help, but none of that is cantrip type.
It was meant as totally silly. So I see we totally agree here. ;)

I am really dazzled how the same people (barring some exceptions) who claim str is a useless attribute are the same people that want to circumvent every str related challenge with "smartness" or "magic". And then there are also the people who claim how unfair ther DM is if they sey no, that does not work or presents such challenges at all (because they exploit their litteral weakness).
 

It was meant as totally silly. So I see we totally agree here. ;)

I am really dazzled how the same people (barring some exceptions) who claim str is a useless attribute are the same people that want to circumvent every str related challenge with "smartness" or "magic". And then there are also the people who claim how unfair ther DM is if they sey no, that does not work or presents such challenges at all (because they exploit their litteral weakness).
I apologize for not recognizing your sarcasm! Mea culpa.
 


It does not need help. Str is good enough without encumbrance.

Just a general thing I noticed with people angry about unbalancedd games. Often they only use parts of the rules. Because the others "don´t add to the game" or are "unfun".

If it does not help, or add anything to the game... then how does it create a more balanced game?
 

I am really dazzled how the same people (barring some exceptions) who claim str is a useless attribute are the same people that want to circumvent every str related challenge with "smartness" or "magic". And then there are also the people who claim how unfair ther DM is if they sey no, that does not work or presents such challenges at all (because they exploit their litteral weakness).

There are a lot of your most recent posts I could try and use as a jumping off point, but this one is a good enough place because you seem to have some really deeply ingrained misconceptions.

For example, your main thrust here is that we "want" to circumvent every strength challenge with clever tactics or magic. But... do we? Take encumbrance, that is supposedly a strength challenge. Do we want to overcome that with magic? Or do we have magic to overcome it that seems stupid not to use since we have it? Sure, in Gygax's games Tenser created the Floating Disc spell to overcome the limits of his strength... but that was LONG before most modern players, and LONG before this edition of the game. So, if I am a player in an encumbrance game, and I take ritual caster to get this spell, and I circumvent encumbrance... is that because I desired to ignore strength, or simply because I had the option to do so? Apply this logic more broadly, do I take fire resistance spells and items to face fire-using foes because I desire to call those enemies weak, or because I am solving the challenge I am presented with?

But, I do think you had a point when you indicated the issue may lie in the attributes and point-buy. You presented it in the worst possible light, but there are some grains of truth in what you were saying.

@Mistwell had a very salient point when they said this "A lid of something, a portcullis, a slab door, something always seems to be in the way that requires a high strength character." but I don't think the significance of it is obvious. Multiple adventures, over a decade, and what is it that comes to mind for a high strength character? Something heavy is blocking the path and needs moved. This is the VAST majority of strength challenges, you cannot progress unless you move this heavy thing, and you need high strength to move said heavy thing.

But... that's a problem, isn't it? Let's say you have a massive slab door that requires a DC 21 strength (Athletics) check to move and you cannot progress further in the adventure unless you move it. Well, you've made a bad design for your adventure. You've gated success behind a specific check, by actively blocking the way forward unless that check is passed in the approved manner. But, if you all players to use clever physics and ropes and pulleys to move the door so that they don't need strength... then the vast majority of strength challenges don't actually require strength. It is a bit of a Catch-22.

And, even if you accept that the game is "more balanced" by requiring every character to have at least a 13 strength if they want to participate... no one seems to ever be happy with that. And that is because strength is so mono-focused. Outside of combat is has one real use. Pick up and move heavy thing. The rules don't require strength for climbing, unless it is a ridiculous climb. The rules don't require strength for swimming, unless it is a ridiculous swim. So by enforcing challenges that can only be defeated by strength, and forcing players to have no other options... you are just creating a tax on their characters. That is exactly how the Artificer I wanted to play felt the moment I was told I had to use variant encumbrance. I didn't particularly want a weak character, but to be a functional character under those rules I needed at least a 13 strength... and then to never pick up a single item in the game. It was going to be my third highest stat, and the only reason I was going to have it, its only use, was to prevent from being penalized for having my starting gear.

I'm not speaking from the perspective of ignorance, this isn't a "why rules not work when I ignore rules?" situation. This is me looking at the rules, and noticing that, more often than not, making Strength matter for more than combat requires me to make the game less fun, and less well-designed, because there is something fundamentally missing in how we handle and deal with strength within the game. It is never presented as offering a boon in and of itself, but as avoiding penalties.
 

The game is gated behind charisma for persuasion and deception and intimidation. The game is gated behind intelligence for history and arcana and investigation and similar checks. The game is gated behind wisdom for perception checks. That's just how the game works.
 

The game is gated behind charisma for persuasion and deception and intimidation. The game is gated behind intelligence for history and arcana and investigation and similar checks. The game is gated behind wisdom for perception checks. That's just how the game works.
The game can stand to work a bit better.

Deception needs to be Intelligence. One needs to be knowledgeable to fool experts, for example to create a forgery. The archetype for the "clever" trickster (such as Loki) is actually Intelligence. Checks that dont require knowledgeability are more so Persuasion checks that rely on trust.

Then Charisma is for social skills, including Persuasion and Intimidation, plus include Insight to read people.

Perception is important enough to become its own mental ability, and refers to the physical senses and sensation.

Wisdom is more clearly mental willpower, sense of self, and sanity.


• Charisma
• Wisdom

• Intelligence
• Perception
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top