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.

 

[Chaosmancer]

To follow up on that post, this is why I disagree with @CapnZapp 's point. Not because I disagree that rogues and fighter's shouldn't have the same movement abilities, but because they keep making the same fundamental mistake as the rest of you, and assuming strength checks come into play with climbing AT ALL.

Rogues are actually far better climbers than Fighters simple because they can bonus action dash. So while a fighter might take their entire turn to climb up a 30 ft wall, a rogue can do that with their bonus action and then have their action for something else. The only instances where they may need strength are slick surfaces (icy cliffs for example) or a surface with few handholds (a sheer, smooth wall) and in those instances they still have access to climbing kits, grappling hooks, and other resources.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

I figured I could check an adventure real quick, and found this in Storm King's Thunder, page 28:

Which seems to go against the DMG on the handholds part, but the rope does negate the need to roll.

 

[Maxperson]

Yup epic boons were nice. Too bad the community rejected them.

Yeah. I generally liked the epic boons, though I thought they were too limited in scope and number. It was a good base idea, but they needed to expand on it, not drop it.

 

[CapnZapp]

Not all forms of movement through a battlefield are the same. Geralt storming forcefully like brienne of tarth Is an entirely different form of movement than what someone else doing it with cunning and grace like Arya stark or Wash. Treating both styles as the same devalues each to the point of mundanity

I completely agree. You're free to skin the movement however you like, as long as you don't expect a character to invest in both Strength and Dexterity to keep moving.

A Fighter and a Rogue can certainly be described as moving very differently, just as long as the game mechanics doesn't force either of them to excel at two stats just to be a hero.

As long as the game mechanics doesn't tell Geralt or Arya ACKCHYUALLY YOU CAN'T DO THAT just based on the character's choice of combat stat we are in full agreement.

 

[CapnZapp]

Stop what? I'm not inventing a straw man. I am questioning your very assertion.

You are advocating for distilling all movement-based challenges into one ability that the PC is good at, and that realism arguments don't matter.

Yes. Thank you for your understanding.
Assuming we're still talking about martial heroes.

In fact, your suggestion is about making Dexterity more of a Super ability. It seems to me that you want to min/max, pumping Dex, and dumping Str, and in order to ignore RAW penalties for dumping Strength, you advocate for replacing Str with Dex checks

No, you keep putting words in my mouth. I am equally saying a Fighter shouldn't need Acrobatics as I'm saying a Rogue shouldn't need Athletics.

In fact, any character gets to choose Athletics or Acrobatics for their "physical impressive feats" skill. I'm not judging.

All I'm saying is that the notion you somehow need both just to both run across a tightrope and climb that rope is patently absurd. If you have even minimal exposure to minmaxing you know how absurdly expensive the suggestion to take both Strength and Dexterity, when you only need one for attacks, damage and defense, comes across as.

In terms of reality, sure, you might have a point (except that Strength and Dexterity are never independent variables, and indeed aren't independent of Constitution either, but I digress).

In terms of charbuilding in 5E D&D, getouttahere.

If you have an inflexible DM that refuses to play ball, you just resign yourself to not being able to climb or tightrope. You just resign yourself to an objectively worse game. Up until such time you find magic that solves the issue, of course.

And you wish for a more flexible DM. A better DM

 

[Maxperson]

This is why I've said many times that balance is overrated. People fret about 5% in a game that varies by 25%. It evens out roughly but the small numbers just are not that meaningful in the grand scheme of things. You overkill the foe or have to take an extra round. You can go another encounter or have to take a rest.

This. Between random d20, bounded accuracy and the way the game is balanced, +2 or even +3 difference isn't generally noticeable from fight to fight. Bonuses mean very little in 5e. Significantly less important than in 3e and 4e.

 

[CapnZapp]

At some point, martials with +9 in a check should just succeed.
Also, there is an optional rule in the DMG that allows every proficient character to succeed a DC 10 checks.

Wish you luck with that. Meanwhile, I'm talking about the vast majority of games where that simply isn't the case. (Perhaps it should be, but it isn't.)

2. I think using athletics and str to balance is stretching it a bit far. We have come to such a challenge. And the solution was quite simple: the rogue used the fallen tree trunk to cross the chasm. The barbarian just climbed down and up on the other side. I think it is a bit lazy to have everyone use the same soultion for a different problem.

If you prefer to rephrase the rule as "as the DM I make it a point of pride to always offer both an Athletics-focused solution and an Acrobatics-focused one" more power to you. Yes, that would be the same solution in effect, just packaged differently.

I wish we all could be as ambitious DMs as you.

Meanwhile, my advice stands given how most DMs can't be arsed to meet your envious standards.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yeah I'm not sure I agree with your assumptions. Rogue subclasses include investigators, there is even a courtier subclass in Level Up. Fighter subclasses have very few acrobatic builds unless you build a Battlemaster one. It seems to me that what you are suggesting is something more suited to a subclass ability (possibly even an optional class ability in Tasha's) or, as discussed previously, a Feat.

I do think fighters should have better battlefield movement options, such as imposing disadvantage on opportunity attacks against them (and at higher levels, against adjacent allies), and maybe allowing a half their movement if they sacrifice one of their attacks, on top of the bonus action attack from charging, but I still like the ability to invest in different types of build with different types of investment.

Climbing a rope using dexterity could easily be added to a level 3 subclass ability for tricksy rogue builds.

I guess I could give you "if both can't, then neither can't"

Not sure I agree with the notion "fighters and rogues have very few acrobatic/athletic builds" but at least you appear to treat both/all characters the same, which is all I'm saying, so...

 

[CapnZapp]

To follow up on that post, this is why I disagree with @CapnZapp 's point. Not because I disagree that rogues and fighter's shouldn't have the same movement abilities, but because they keep making the same fundamental mistake as the rest of you, and assuming strength checks come into play with climbing AT ALL.

Rogues are actually far better climbers than Fighters simple because they can bonus action dash. So while a fighter might take their entire turn to climb up a 30 ft wall, a rogue can do that with their bonus action and then have their action for something else. The only instances where they may need strength are slick surfaces (icy cliffs for example) or a surface with few handholds (a sheer, smooth wall) and in those instances they still have access to climbing kits, grappling hooks, and other resources.

If your disagreement is based on "but I already allow everyone to move about how they wish" then I guess I can live with that disagreement.

 

[CapnZapp]

This. Between random d20, bounded accuracy and the way the game is balanced, +2 or even +3 difference isn't generally noticeable from fight to fight. Bonuses mean very little in 5e. Significantly less important than in 3e and 4e.

"Bonuses mean less than in 3E" is an assertion that can be both true and false.

Yes, in 3E you lived or died with your bonuses. You simply had to have them; the game math assumed you had them = you died without them.

But that is something differet than saying "a bonus of [enter +1 or +3 or +5] doesn't matter" which your wording does not make sure to avoid the implication of (to put it VERY generously), hence this reply.

TRUE: Bonuses are significantly less important than in 3e.

ALSO TRUE: a +2 or +3 remains hugely influential and it's nonsense to suggest it has little impact.

Specifically, you said a bonus "isn't generally noticeable". You are conflating two things.

Yes, in any given fight a +3 might not matter much.
No, in the long run a +3 matters immensely, don't kid yourself otherwise.