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.

 

[mellored]

IME they’re pretty rarely banned

I ban flying ranged attacker's, at least at low levels.

Flying melee isn't a problem.

 

[James Gasik]

IME they’re pretty rarely banned

Yeah? I've yet to be allowed to play one in 5e. I wish I had your experience.

 

[CapnZapp]

This isn't a rule failure in 5e. It's a rule feature. Whether you like the idea or not, 5e is intentionally written vaguely in many areas to reinforce the rulings over rules mantra of 5e. They were trying to bring the game back to the older editions where the DM decided more, rather than relying on highly specific rules.

Edit:

Let's just say I'll pretend your reply to me didn't exist. I'll just pretend you wrote the following instead:

I like the rulings over rules philosophy, but am often frustrated at just how vague some of the rules are.

 

[CapnZapp]

Except, far more people tout Dexterity as the uber-stat in 5e as it is now. Expanding that further doesn’t feel as sensible as a feat or a subclass feature for specific acrobatic builds.

Then fix the uberstatness.

Don't try to argue "but the way a Rogue falls flat on her face when attempting to climb or swim is the only thing that keeps Dex from taking over the game".

Whatever you think of stat balance, first fix the wonky rules hole discussed here. Then you can patch up stat balance.

 

[Maxperson]

Edit:

Let's just say I'll pretend your reply to me didn't exist. I'll just pretend you wrote the following instead:

Why? That's arrogant, dismissive and frankly more than a little insulting.

Why pretend that only the portion that kinda sorta agreed with you exists? Especially since my two paragraphs were not at all contradictory.

 

[Pauln6]

Then fix the uberstatness.

Don't try to argue "but the way a Rogue falls flat on her face when attempting to climb or swim is the only thing that keeps Dex from taking over the game".

Whatever you think of stat balance, first fix the wonky rules hole discussed here. Then you can patch up stat balance.

Wait, so swimming in difficult waters AND climbing should be Dex? ;-p

I already suggested my fix but I would say though that I do allow alternate stat use in appropriate circumstances. Swimming through a narrow opening underwater - Dex. Swimming against the tide - not Dex. I'm struggling to think of any circumstance in which jumping distance should rely on Dex (maybe swinging from a rope to gain momentum?) but I'm open to suggestions. I'm struggling to think of any circumstance in which a difficult climb should rely on Dex (maybe wriggling through a narrow tunnel with a steep incline?) but I'm open to suggestions.

A rogue that doesn't invest in Intelligence is not as good at disarming traps. A rogue that doesn't invest in Wisdom is not as good at spotting traps. A rogue that doesn't invest in strength is not as good at climbing and swimming. That's not the be-all and end-all of any build. That's why the game gives you options.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Pro Tip:

Whenever "so many people" memory-holes a rule, the first order of business is to ask yourself:

Is there something wrong with the rule?

The reason there's a "massive blank hole" probably isn't that people are deficient. Instead, likely the rule leads to undesirable results and/or is counterintuitive when used, if not outright too hard and complex to use (not applicable in this case).

In this case, the rules simply aren't prescriptive enough. They're too open-ended.

• In one DMs campaign a hero with Climb speed can simply move in three dimensions up to their listed Speed. This is way too good for some groups - more importantly, this mechanic would give no sense of achievement, since no skill or check is involved. Basically, it drains all drama and excitement from three-dimensional combat since heroes just move as if on a paved road. The choice whether to risk some heroic movement or opt for safer more conservative positioning disappears.
• In one DMs campaign a hero without Climb speed moves at half speed, and only if they make an Athletics check. Different DMs use different DCs, since the book doesn't say*. What happens if the check is failed can differ further. This can become so restrictive (if it isn't too hard it might be too time consuming), the group simply opts for alternative solutions. Just to mention one: getting Misty Step is fairly easy and becomes a game-changer in this type of campaign. (Remember, diagonals doesn't count extra in 5th Edition, so moving along the "diagonal of the cube" nets you 1.7 times the movement. That is, a point in space that is 30 feet north of you and 30 feet east of you AND 30 feet above you is actually 30x1.7≈50 feet from you.)

*) and don't try "the DC will be 10, since the rules say so". You know very well that official published adventures have their own ideas of what DCs to use. Some wall can be "no check" in one scenario and DC 30 in another, depending on how much of a challenge the wall is intended to represent.

Both will be able to claim they've interpreted the rules correctly.

Whenever the rules just leave fundamental things up for grabs, that's another way of saying the rules are failing in their first and foremost task: telling the players how to do something. No wonder people just make something up, or reuse various bits and pieces from previous editions. No wonder people don't understand each other - the rules have failed to facilitate common grounds for the discussion.

So why don't people have DC checks to get through difficult terrain? The rules for Difficult terrain are exactly as open-ended. So are the rules for normal movement.

Here's the thing, I've played in a lot of groups where people have had athletics to climb. None of them went for 3-D movement. It isn't until they have flight or I've explicitly told people that climbing is fine that people start going for it. Is that the fault of the rules? I don't think so, because people have tried to break items and those rules aren't even in the PHB.

The thing is, the vast majority of tables have run like your second example. Half speed, with an athletics check, and failure means failing and taking damage. It is so restrictive that most players have been disincentivized from even trying. I don't care if it drains all the excitement out of it to just let people with a climb speed climb, because right now there is no excitement because no one dares to attempt to climb. They wait til they have a non-check way to move in 3-Dimensions. Giving them another, worse way of doing so is just going to let them achieve things easier and faster, without teleporting or flying.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This perspective is generally not constructive.

Please don't fall victim to player entitlement. If you consider the DM asking you for checks to be punitive, you have a dysfunctional mindset. The solution is for you change mindset to one where you accept and trust your DMs decisions.

The notion that characters are not required to do something by the rules but the DM asks for it anyway just doesn't work. Please accept that what the GM says is the rules. Not what the rulebook says. And in this case, the rules specifically leaves the decision up to the DM. (A distinction that is mentally risky, since it opens up the idea that if the rules don't specifically leave a decision up to the DM, then the DM isn't empowered to make that decision. In reality, every rule can be overridden by the DM, full stop.)

Regards

Seriously? Trust the DM who specifically went out of their way to take away an ability from a character, after agreeing to allow that ability? Who immediately made up justifications to prevent logical actions, just to prevent a character from doing what they were built to do?

Guess what? I did allow the DM to make the rules. I played nice. I only pushed back the first time, because I thought he had forgotten the rule. But just because I allowed the DM to rule doesn't mean I agree with the rule, think it was right, or can't use it as an example of poor DMing. That isn't player entitlement.

Just like it isn't player entitlement to get frustrated with that same DM, in that same game, who had our characters in a deadly situation against monsters with abilities we weren't informed of on a quest from some NPCs, and when the NPCs were confronted about why they let us go in with poor intel, claimed it was because we didn't ask for intel. Then, in the next fight, when my character specifically asked specific questions to those same NPCs about a life or death struggle and monster intel.... had the NPCs lie to us and put our lives in danger. Because they thought it would be funny.

Not every time a player calls out a DM for doing a poor job, is it because that player is entitled and should just trust the DM. Sometimes, it's the DM. Don't fall into the trap of assuming all DMs are perfect and can do no wrong.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Another example of the real culprit: rules that avoid responsibility. Rules that try to cater to everybody... and end up confusing and alienating most of you.

Now I'm not saying the quoted claim is wrong. The rules are just too vague, allowing no less than three interpretations of this passage alone:
1) having a climb speed means you don't have to make climb (Athletics) checks
2) having a climb speed doesn't save you from having to make climb checks
3) your speed is only un-reduced when you don't make a climb speed

All these three claims can be said to be correct (in the poster's campaign). More to the point, the rules have failed to the degree that all these claims can be said to be incorrect (in your campaign)!

I wish I had thought of this sooner, because it is a stronger point, but how do you imagine this plays out with Swim Speed?

See, unlike climbing, Swim Speed is played by the rules the majority of the time. If you have a swim speed, you don't need to make swim (athletics) checks to swim. Not having a swim speed doesn't mean you automatically have to make an athletics check either, as many times the DM will allow you to swim across rivers, ponds and lakes with no issue. If there is a guideline in the water (ie a rope) there is also not a swimming check. I've never seen a monster with a swim speed need to make an athletics check to swim in calm water.

And yet, swimming and climbing are literally the exact same rules. Same exact text, same exact words. So how is it that swim speed and swimming are perfectly clear and able to be run by the rules, but climbing is too open ended and up to interpretation?

 

[James Gasik]

I wish I had thought of this sooner, because it is a stronger point, but how do you imagine this plays out with Swim Speed?

See, unlike climbing, Swim Speed is played by the rules the majority of the time. If you have a swim speed, you don't need to make swim (athletics) checks to swim. Not having a swim speed doesn't mean you automatically have to make an athletics check either, as many times the DM will allow you to swim across rivers, ponds and lakes with no issue. If there is a guideline in the water (ie a rope) there is also not a swimming check. I've never seen a monster with a swim speed need to make an athletics check to swim in calm water.

And yet, swimming and climbing are literally the exact same rules. Same exact text, same exact words. So how is it that swim speed and swimming are perfectly clear and able to be run by the rules, but climbing is too open ended and up to interpretation?

Well, if I had to guess, I think it comes down to the fact that, unless you're dealing with a raging river or a severe undertow, most people can swim enough to stay afloat for a short time.

And if aquatic movement is on the table, I don't think most DM's intend for their party to helplessly drown.

But climbing? Well, for a lot of people, the first time you try rock climbing, you instantly realize "holy heck, this is hard". You have to rely a lot on your upper body strength, gravity is fighting you and you don't have a naturally buoyant medium to work with. You can't just pick a direction and flounder or wade towards it, you have to carefully identify and reach for handholds.

And in D&D, the failure points are different as well. One has you start drowning, a process that can take some time. The other has you fall and take damage, usually in the same turn.

So I think some people have a tendency to think of one of these circumstances being more extreme than the other, even if the rules don't necessarily reflect that. I remember for many years, the rule was if you don't have Swimming as a proficiency or skill, you just couldn't do it.

And I watched many DM's reject that, because it was unrealistic to expect all characters to be trained swimmers.

But climbing? The game has a long legacy of people just not being able to do it without special training!

That's just my experience, I could be way off base.