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.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Why is his Longbow doing 1d8+5 instead of 1d8+2? Pact of the Blade only conjures a melee weapon.

Because you can bond with ANY magic weapon. You just cannot create/summon it if it's not a melee weapon.

It's weird, but it's the same way in 2014 PHB, so it must be intentional by now.

 

[Kurotowa]

Why is his Longbow doing 1d8+5 instead of 1d8+2? Pact of the Blade only conjures a melee weapon.

The wording in UA7 is vague (as is often the case with playtest material). It says you can only conjure a melee weapon but can "create a bond with a magic weapon you touch." The "melee weapon" limitation is not explicitly repeated for the magic item clause, so in typical fashion it is assumed to intentionally not apply. I would disagree with that interpretation, but that's just one more on the list for me.

 

[Gorck]

Because you can bond with ANY magic weapon. You just cannot create/summon it if it's not a melee weapon.

The wording in UA7 is vague. It says you can only conjure a melee weapon but can "create a bond with a magic weapon you touch." The "melee weapon" limitation is not explicitly repeated for the magic item clause, so in typical fashion it is assumed to intentionally not apply. I would disagree with that interpretation, but that's just one more on the list for me.

Ahh, there it is. I knew I was missing something somewhere. I think they should probably limit that to magical melee weapons in the future.

 

[Mistwell]

The wording in UA7 is vague (as is often the case with playtest material). It says you can only conjure a melee weapon but can "create a bond with a magic weapon you touch." The "melee weapon" limitation is not explicitly repeated for the magic item clause, so in typical fashion it is assumed to intentionally not apply. I would disagree with that interpretation, but that's just one more on the list for me.

It was that way in 2014, what makes you assume it is planned to be changed for 2024 when it hasn't been in the playtest yet?

 

[Mistwell]

Ahh, there it is. I knew I was missing something somewhere. I think they should probably limit that to magical melee weapons in the future.

They should. But that would be one more issue that needs to be changed in this playtest warlock, right? The accusation is it's overpowered as it is right now.

 

[Kurotowa]

It was that way in 2014, what makes you assume it is planned to be changed for 2024 when it hasn't been in the playtest yet?

It appears that Crawford has given different answers at different times. And as always it's difficult to tell which is the strictly RAW answer and which is the developer's RAI answer. So I will downgrade my answer to, "Reply hazy, ask again later."

 

[Mistwell]

It appears that Crawford has given different answers at different times. And as always it's difficult to tell which is the strictly RAW answer and which is the developer's RAI answer. So I will downgrade my answer to, "Reply hazy, ask again later."

They issued Sage Advice on it, then Crawford repeated the Sage Advice is correct and they delve into the Magic Weapon exception there, and then they again repeated the same rule for the playtest. Right now, it's pretty darn clear that's the rule. IF they change it in a future playtest or final rules then sure. But repeating it twice (and most recently) that it specifically works that way seems pretty clear, along with the language allowing for it on its face. Here is the Sage Advice:

"You can also use Pact of the Blade to bond with a magic weapon, turning it into your pact weapon. This magic weapon doesn’t have to be a melee weapon, so you could use the feature on a +1 longbow, for instance. Once the bond is formed, the magic weapon appears whenever you call your pact weapon to you, and the intent is that you can’t change the magic weapon’s form when it appears. For example, if you bond with a flame tongue (longsword) and send the weapon to the feature’s extradimensional space, the weapon comes back as a longsword when you summon it. You don’t get to turn it into a club. Similarly, if you bond with a dagger of venom, you can’t summon it as a maul; it’s always a dagger.

The feature initially allows the conjuring forth of a melee weapon, yet we allow more versatility when it comes to magic weapons. We didn’t want a narrow focus in this feature to make a warlock unhappy when a variety of magic weapons appear in a campaign. Does this versatility extend outside the melee theme of the feature? It sure does, but we’re willing to occasionally bend a design concept if doing so is likely to increase a player’s happiness."

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Do you know that or are you just taking Treantmonk at his word? Because I wouldn't.

His full Bladelock video is out, and I posted my concerns over in the Warlock thread where I felt they belonged. But since it was getting discussion here, a quick recap: He assumes that Blade Pact qualifies you for GWM, which I think is very wrong. He assumes 100% uptime on Spirit Shroud, which I think is unrealistic and relies on pre-revision material that may not always be allowed. He assumes an Eldritch Smite on every crit, which is frankly impossible when you're already devoting a spell slot per combat to Spirit Shroud.

Those numbers he posts are not realistic and should not be trusted or quoted without comment.

I think that this is a valid critique. I tend to prefer Treantmonk's analysis over many others because he is pretty consistent on his assumptions.
Also when I have checked his numbers I get similar results. That said, I do not usually go deep into the weeds on optimiser Youtube.
I think that when it comes to spell casters one is better looking at the upper and lower bounds of damage. The actual damage for a caster nova in a single combat is very dependant on the number of rests, assumed resource consumption and assumed length of fights.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think that this is a valid critique. I tend to prefer Treantmonk's analysis over many others because he is pretty consistent on his assumptions.
Also when I have checked his numbers I get similar results. That said, I do not usually go deep into the weeds on optimiser Youtube.
I think that when it comes to spell casters one is better looking at the upper and lower bounds of damage. The actual damage for a caster nova in a single combat is very dependant on the number of rests, assumed resource consumption and assumed length of fights.

Yeah average damage, especially where you’re putting smite crits into the average, just isn’t a good way to analyze a spellcaster, IMO.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

@Mistwell Thank you for actually posting something solid.

It’s frustrating, to put it mildly, when someone pops in to say “you’re all ignoring the real thing, which is XYZ” with no explanation or clarification.