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.

 

[Pauln6]

This is about the only part of your post I can agree with. If people want this so badly, a sidebar telling them what penalties to take if they want them would be fine.

I think this sums up the arguments perfectly. "I want MY version to be the core. YOUR version can be the sidebar."

My version is currently the core and so the rules would only require one optional sidebar covering all small characters to implement what you want. Your version requires specific amendments to the race descriptions and weapon descriptions.

It's not impossible, but it's a lot more effort.

I suppose an alternative with the mix and match options would be a purchasable trait to overcome weapon size limitations but some people might view that as a penalty or unfair tax that prevents them from some other benefit.

FYI I have home-brewed Gauntlets of Ogre Power (and Girdles) to be +2 (or +4) strength capped at the current ability scores in the description. But in addition, I treat gauntlet wearers as large (or huge for the girdles) for the purposes of pushing, tripping, or carrying etc. Within logical limits, this would allow small characters to wield bigger weapons. I really don't like the items that give you a set ability score so I took inspiration from Mutants and Masterminds about how to make characters feel strong without breaking bounded accuracy.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Different campaigns have different styles. We just aren't a group of optimimisers and some of the silliness of certain optimised builds stand out and are worthy of mockery to us. If you can't please all of the people all of the time, it's fine to have a baseline and then options to go in different directions. We've been playing with healing dialled down since the edition came out and that works for us. You may enjoy playing with the healing option dialled up.

Similarly, I'm quite happy that short characters have a few limitations that larger characters don't have. They have fewer limitations than in previous editions. Maybe in the next edition, they will get their great sword. I may think it's silly and just number crunching because I am a player who likes to visualise the characters and I can't see any compelling reason to make it the baseline but I acknowledge that it would not break the game and if they wanted to add an option to the dial, I'm fine with that.

I also acknowledge that there are many other silly concepts that you can hand wave away with magic and that a Harry Potter themed game can play very different to a LOTR themed game, which is closer to our 33 year old campaign, as Harry Potter wasn't around back then. I just accept that the baseline dial is where it is and I am happier with that than I would be with where you want to aim the baseline for the numbers.

Sure, different campaigns have different flavors. However, I want to highlight some misconceptions that you seem to continue to bring up.

Just because you don't see a compelling reason to imagine a character with an oversized weapon doesn't mean other people don't. I could trivially find a half-dozen characters who are human and wielding massive weapons. And we don't have, naturally in the game, giant-sized weapons that are balanced for human characters to use. Additionally, someone might want to copy the aesthetic of a small-sized character known for wielding such weapons.

This is the point that I am digging into, because it seems like there is no consideration for it. Yes, a Halfling Barbarian is a bit of a silly concept from some angles. And yes, a halfling barbarian using a greatsword may look silly to you. However, for someone else it may harken to art or characters they appreciate. And dismissing it as nothing but number-crunching is ridiculous. If someone was purely number crunching, they wouldn't play a barbarian and especially not a barbarian halfling.

Sure, maybe they want to utilize PAM+GWM+Reckless Attack, but then they will want to go Variant human for the extra feat, or Half-Orc for more survivabilty and increased crit damage. The concept isn't optimal from the start, so dismissing the greatsword wielding halfling barbarian as nothing more than number crunching done for optimal combat efficiency deeply misses the point.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think this sums up the arguments perfectly. "I want MY version to be the core. YOUR version can be the sidebar."

My version is currently the core and so the rules would only require one optional sidebar covering all small characters to implement what you want. Your version requires specific amendments to the race descriptions and weapon descriptions.

It's not impossible, but it's a lot more effort.

I suppose an alternative with the mix and match options would be a purchasable trait to overcome weapon size limitations but some people might view that as a penalty or unfair tax that prevents them from some other benefit.

FYI I have home-brewed Gauntlets of Ogre Power (and Girdles) to be +2 (or +4) strength capped at the current ability scores in the description. But in addition, I treat gauntlet wearers as large (or huge for the girdles) for the purposes of pushing, tripping, or carrying etc. Within logical limits, this would allow small characters to wield bigger weapons. I really don't like the items that give you a set ability score so I took inspiration from Mutants and Masterminds about how to make characters feel strong without breaking bounded accuracy.

Your version is core in 2014, but not in One DnD. And I never advocated for the heavy weapon property to be changed. I don't care that it is, but I never personally felt it was a problem, because it was largely nothing more than aesthetic and conceptual pigeonholing. It only affected small characters who wanted to be strength-based, no one and nothing else.

Additionally, the sidebar was not in reference to changing the heavy weapon property, but to giving negative modifiers, like Elves getting -2 Con and halflings capping their strength at 16, and other things I have seen suggested, which are decidedly not core. My apologies for not being more explicit.

 

[Pauln6]

Your version is core in 2014, but not in One DnD. And I never advocated for the heavy weapon property to be changed. I don't care that it is, but I never personally felt it was a problem, because it was largely nothing more than aesthetic and conceptual pigeonholing. It only affected small characters who wanted to be strength-based, no one and nothing else.

Additionally, the sidebar was not in reference to changing the heavy weapon property, but to giving negative modifiers, like Elves getting -2 Con and halflings capping their strength at 16, and other things I have seen suggested, which are decidedly not core. My apologies for not being more explicit.

Yes. I think that, coming from 1e, it's important to recognise that the pigeon-holing was based off literary and movie references that were available in the seventies. Aragorn is a half-elf so half-elves could be rangers etc.

In the last 50 years, so many more references have popped up to shift the dial, but to retain the early flavour, I think the ability score adjustments were not to punish or restrict but to give an extra benefit to the classic combinations of 1e. I do see how optimisers might view that giving extra to some combinations is punishing other combinations. I suppose I am a glass half full kinda guy in that regard. I thought it was clever nudging rather that outright restrictions.

I think, with stat inflation now rolled into feats, and cookie cutter benefits from heritage, they could probably do away with racial modifiers altogether, or possibly restrict it to +1 to the classic base stats from 1e. I'd be fine if they bought in a sidebar with a classic +1, -1 alternative. Even capping strength can work as an option as long as the lowest level is set at 16, since magic can exceed the cap in any event, Dexterity is an alternative, and even a Str16 fighter can hold their own.

I suppose part of my reticence is that we are playing 1e characters that have been adapted when the edition changed. When we got to 4e, while it was fun, it wasn't possible to build the same characters because we had to max out stats and grapple with vastly different multiclass rules. It was DnD in name only. 5e feels like it has struck a good balance and further drift feels like it could take the game to a weird place again.

The core isn't broken - some classes just need slight tweaks up or down, and the differences between optimised and non-optimised are not so great that anyone feels they can't contribute or have a lot of fun. I do agree that if it isn't unbalanced, there's no reason not to have something as an official option but equally, not everything has to be an official option. Maybe if enough people want it, it should be.

 

[Valetudo]

Aragon is not a half elf he is a numenarian(spelling?) Which have elven ancestry mixed in the far past. I hate that I'm nerd posting this but I can't help it.

 

[Pauln6]

Aragon is not a half elf he is a numenarian(spelling?) Which have elven ancestry mixed in inches far past. I hate that I'm nervous posting this but I can't help it.

Yeah but if you look at 1e DnD, half elves lived about as long as Nuemorians. Remember, they didn't lift everything straight out of Tolkien but they took inspiration. Rangers were able to use crystal balls for no reason other than Tolkien but only the cultural divisions (wood, high, gray) and the fact that elves didn't have souls were Tolkien for the elves. Otherwise, they are a mish mash.

 

[Valetudo]

Except you have Elrod half elven to show what a half elf is. Numerals where still considered human or maybe superhuman almost.

 

[Pauln6]

Except you have Elrod half elven to show what a half elf is. Numerals where still considered human or maybe superhuman almost.

Yes and Elrond's healing ability meant half elves could be clerics and multiclass clerics. I'm not talking about actual Tolkien lore, I'm talking about the inspiration that 1e DnD took from Tolkien lore. Humans AND half elves could be rangers (later extended to elves in Unearthed Arcana).

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes. I think that, coming from 1e, it's important to recognise that the pigeon-holing was based off literary and movie references that were available in the seventies. Aragorn is a half-elf so half-elves could be rangers etc.

In the last 50 years, so many more references have popped up to shift the dial, but to retain the early flavour, I think the ability score adjustments were not to punish or restrict but to give an extra benefit to the classic combinations of 1e. I do see how optimisers might view that giving extra to some combinations is punishing other combinations. I suppose I am a glass half full kinda guy in that regard. I thought it was clever nudging rather that outright restrictions.

Yeah... I don't care to retain the early flavor. I get fantasy in the mid-1900's had a massive influence on fantasy, but I'm far far far more interested in the modern flavors of the game and of fantasy. And while they were not outright restrictions, they prioritized "acceptable" conventions of fantasy over newer material.

They would do nothing but get in my way, closing off far more paths than they opened, by making it clear which options you are "supposed" to take.

I think, with stat inflation now rolled into feats, and cookie cutter benefits from heritage, they could probably do away with racial modifiers altogether, or possibly restrict it to +1 to the classic base stats from 1e. I'd be fine if they bought in a sidebar with a classic +1, -1 alternative. Even capping strength can work as an option as long as the lowest level is set at 16, since magic can exceed the cap in any event, Dexterity is an alternative, and even a Str16 fighter can hold their own.

I suppose part of my reticence is that we are playing 1e characters that have been adapted when the edition changed. When we got to 4e, while it was fun, it wasn't possible to build the same characters because we had to max out stats and grapple with vastly different multiclass rules. It was DnD in name only. 5e feels like it has struck a good balance and further drift feels like it could take the game to a weird place again.

See, right here. Why are you trying to make the fantasy or 1e fit 4e or 5e? It is a goal I fundamentally do not understand. You want to put up limits and barriers to capture a feel of fantasy that has no appeal to me or to a lot of modern fantasy people. If I want a character who doesn't have a high strength... then they aren't going to be a strength-based character. All capping a small races strength at 16 does is prevent strength-based builds with those characters, and while I'm sure you don't care about that, there are a lot of concepts I like and would like to emulate that are strength-based small people.

And since it is never discussed to cap mental stats, this just makes it more likely to have small people be magical, and that doesn't actually ever solve anything.

The core isn't broken - some classes just need slight tweaks up or down, and the differences between optimised and non-optimised are not so great that anyone feels they can't contribute or have a lot of fun. I do agree that if it isn't unbalanced, there's no reason not to have something as an official option but equally, not everything has to be an official option. Maybe if enough people want it, it should be.

I've never said the core is broken. And you may feel the difference between optimized and non-optimized is minor. But at the same time, if you are going to be a fighter, and you can pick between your max stat attack stat being a 16 strength or being a 20 dex... the vast majority of people are going to go dex. It isn't because they don't feel like they could possibly contribute with a 16 strength, but that they can obviously contribute more and be more effective with the 20 dex.

And again, your full desire for this is to recapture the feel of 50 years ago. Fantasy has evolved since then. We aren't playing the same game inspired by the same characters any more.

 

[Horwath]

I've never said the core is broken. And you may feel the difference between optimized and non-optimized is minor. But at the same time, if you are going to be a fighter, and you can pick between your max stat attack stat being a 16 strength or being a 20 dex... the vast majority of people are going to go dex. It isn't because they don't feel like they could possibly contribute with a 16 strength, but that they can obviously contribute more and be more effective with the 20 dex.

STR needs better melee weapons(read; more damage) so utility in Dex can take a melee damage penalty.
Since we removed the 1+1/2 bonus to damage of 2Handed melee attacks, 2Handed melee base damage could get a die category bump up, or two.

I.E: greatsword can go from 2d6 to 2d8.
2d6+7(+5 with +1/2 added) and 2d8+5 is same average damage.