D&D (2024) Unearthed Arcana Playtest Packet 7 Live on D&D Beyond

Wizards of the Coast posted the seventh playtest packet for the 2024 update to Dungeons & Dragons. The new playtest packet includes updated class material for the Barbarian, Fighter, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard classes.

Highlights for each class:

Barbarian

• New Path of the World Tree subclass and updated Berserker, Wild Heart (formerly Totem Warrior), and Zealot subclasses.
• Attack recklessly for a full round rather than just one turn.
• Path of the Wild Heart (formerly Path of the Totem Warrior) has updated options.
• Brutal Critical gets damage buffs.

Fighter

• New Brawler subclass excels at using improvised weapons and unarmed strikes.
• Tactical Mind and Tactical Shift expand the use of Second Wind.
• Studied Attacks grants advantage on an attack roll against an enemy after you've missed an attack against them.
• Battle Master and its maneuvers have been updated.

Sorcerer

• Innate Sorcery empowers your spellcasting for a limited time.
• Sorcery Incarnate and Arcane Apotheosis boost your Metamagic while Innate Sorcery is active.
• Sorcerous Restoration is available at 5th level and scales with your sorcerer level.
• Wild Magic Sorcery now more reliably allows you to roll on the Wild Magic Surge table.

Warlock

• Pact Magic is back.
• Eldritch Invocations are now available at 1st level and your options have been revised.
• Pact Boons are now invocations, and Mystic Arcanum is once again a class feature.
• Patron Spells are always prepared.
• Updated Archfey Patron, Celestial Patron, Fiend Patron, Great Old One Patron subclasses.

Wizard

• Spellcasting feature now allows you to swap out a cantrip each long rest.
• Memorize Spell is now a feature. Modify Spell and Create spell have been nixed.
• Updated Abjurer, Diviner, Evoker, and Illusionist subclasses.

Universal changes include a return to class spell lists, more features from Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, and update to some of the spells including arcane eruption, sorcerous burst, counterspell, and jump.

The official Dungeons & Dragons YouTube account also posted an almost 90-minute-long video doing a deep dive on the playtest packet.

 

[dave2008]

Not really. "No-one" is a simple figure of speech, meaning "relatively few people", and certainly is common, and calling it gross hyperbole is gross hyperbole.

IDK, if I extrapolate my very limited exposure it would seem like the usage is quite common. Therefore suggesting that the figure of speech "no-one" is bordering closer to gross hyperbole than not.

Of course, this is based on my own anecdotal evidence, so not anything concrete. My like yourself.

 

[WanderingMystic]

Ive been saying for years that Tasha's was a soft rules update and seeing so many of the abilities from there become part of core seems like this was the intention the entire time.

Ok. WHY. WHYYYYYYY. WHY do Draconic and Wild Sorcs not get expanded spell lists? They acknowledge in the document to use aberrant and clockwork, so they can clearly acknowledge the design of those two classes represent the future of the sorc. Give draconic and wild the same love

So if you look at aberrant mind and clockwork all they get for that level are the spell, ist and a ribbon feature. When you compare that to the dragons new ac boost you can see why the dragon and wild magic don't have a unique additional spell list. If they were to add that then they would have to gut the other 3rd level abilities.

 

[dave2008]

It's not, and so I say "simply false" to you. What more can we say?

How about: "my mistake," or "I could be wrong," or "there a many ways to approach language," etc. I think there are several things you could say that would acknowledge your human (i.e. fallible ) and language is complex.

PS - I'm a fan of the Oxford comma if you couldn't tell

 

[Ruin Explorer]

How about: "my mistake," or "I could be wrong," or "there a many ways to approach language," etc. I think there are several things you could say that would acknowledge your human (i.e. fallible ) and language is complex.

PS - I'm a fan of the Oxford comma if you couldn't tell

I too am an Oxford comma fan.

So at least we have that in common!

 

[Mistwell]

Simply false. To magic something isn’t even especially uncommon language, much less remotely unnatural. It’s literally just the generic verb for “do a magical thing to”.

A quick Google search of "Define Magicked" comes up with many dictionary definitions from a wide variety of dictionaries. It does seem to be a well accepted word in the English language.

That said, I find myself caring very little about whether it's used or not. There is so much to talk about from this packet and this just doesn't seem a high priority to me.

I am much more concerned by things like, for example, Warlocks can no longer switch invocations when you gain a level in Warlock. That is a specific change made in the latest playtest doc, but not called out in the notes on what they changed. Seems a pretty meaningful change to me.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

A quick Google search of "Define Magicked" comes up with many dictionary definitions from a wide variety of dictionaries. It does seem to be a well accepted word in the English language.

Yep.

I am much more concerned by things like, for example, Warlocks can no longer switch invocations when you gain a level in Warlock. That is a specific change made in the latest playtest doc, but not called out in the notes on what they changed. Seems a pretty meaningful change to me.

That I hadn't noticced. Good catch. It will certainly be in my feedback.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I know exactly the language (particularly re cleaning and cooking products and so on) you mean but it is not typically used to refer to actual magic (rather metaphorical magic) and it's deployed with vastly more subtlety and fluency - words like conjure and enchant and so on would typically be used, rather than "magic" in literally the vast majority of the examples (as the examples even seemed to agree, given the parenthetical text).

I’ve seen ads claiming dietary supplements help brains “brain better”. In the gaming context, I’ve seen online threads where they say things like “I’m going to magic (or “thief” or “fighter”, etc.) that!”, and witnessed it in person. In the TSR era.

Calvin & Hobbes did it in 1993.

It isn’t common. But “verbing nouns” is common enough that when it appears in pop culture, it’s understood.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It isn’t common. But “verbing nouns” is common enough that when it appears in pop culture, it’s understood.

Sure, I totally agree - it's usually understood - though it does a barrier which sometimes causes confusion - and the word "magic", which is incredibly vague and could refer to species traits, class abilities, spells or items, or be literal or metaphorical, is particularly bad for that ("I'm going to Wizard that" is actually likely to be more conclusive than "I'm going to magic that").

It still does not fit the "natural language" approach that Crawford claimed to have been taking with 5E imho.

But it's just one of example of dozens where the "natural language" claim with 5E breaks down. It's all fundamentally part of the "apology edition" complex, because and 3E and particularly 4E had defined terms which were very much not natural language. As a result of course they had far fewer disputes over exactly how the core rules worked than 5E has had (relative to the amount of rules, anyway). So certainly 5E was a return to the AD&D days in that sense!

 

[Kalmi]

Sure, I totally agree - it's usually understood - though it does a barrier which sometimes causes confusion - and the word "magic", which is incredibly vague and could refer to species traits, class abilities, spells or items, or be literal or metaphorical, is particularly bad for that ("I'm going to Wizard that" is actually likely to be more conclusive than "I'm going to magic that").

It still does not fit the "natural language" approach that Crawford claimed to have been taking with 5E imho.

But it's just one of example of dozens where the "natural language" claim with 5E breaks down. It's all fundamentally part of the "apology edition" complex, because and 3E and particularly 4E had defined terms which were very much not natural language. As a result of course they had far fewer disputes over exactly how the core rules worked than 5E has had (relative to the amount of rules, anyway). So certainly 5E was a return to the AD&D days in that sense!

Well, I would say WotC already burned that particular bridge before crossing it in 2014 when they decided to name the "Attack action," which is even worse because there's another mechanical term in "attack" which is not actually synonymous.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well, I would say WotC already burned that particular bridge before crossing it in 2014 when they decided to name the "Attack action," which is even worse because there's another mechanical term in "attack" which is not actually synonymous.

That is an example of the same general problem for sure.