D&D (2024) New One D&D Playtest Includes 5 Classes & New Weapon Mastery System

The latest playtest packet for One D&D has just landed, and features five classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard) and the new Weapon Mastery system.

In this new Unearthed Arcana document for the 2024 Core Rulebooks, we explore material designed for the next version of the Player’s Handbook. This playtest document presents the rules on the Weapon Mastery property, updates to weapons, new and revised spells, several new feats, and five classes: Barbarian, Fighter, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard. You will also find an updated rules glossary that supercedes the glossary of any previous playtest documents.

Claim Unearthed Arcana now! - D&D Beyond

www.dndbeyond.com

​

 

[Asisreo]

...No?

Let me put it this way: you don't have to accept that you're at the DM's mercy and the DM may very well give you the illusion that you're not. But at the end of the day, nothing in the game ever happens without the DM's approval.

 

[Parmandur]

The Revised Ranger was well-received based on surveys and after, what, 5 years? it was weakened again.

So was the manuevers on all fighters.

The "Revised Ranger" tests were 8 years ago now, and they said they "learned interesting thing" about what people wanted, not that the revision was well receives. Now, the revision from packet 2 last year? That was very well received, apparently, unlike those older tests.

They really haven't made drastic swings in their designs based on player feedback.

The main effect has been to veto ideas, which makes sense since fan attitudes are going to tend towards being conservative.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Neither can WoTC, that's why they aren't addressing what the fans want. It loses its marketability.

What a nonsensical statement.

Firstly, the Fighter is the most popular class in 5e. It has better satisfaction numbers than the wizard. So, you’re conflating your preferences and what you see at your table with “the majority of fans”.

Second, if a thing is what most fans want, it’s marketable. If the very mundane and simple fighter is marketable, it’s because that’s what appeals to the most people.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Let me put it this way: you don't have to accept that you're at the DM's mercy and the DM may very well give you the illusion that you're not. But at the end of the day, nothing in the game ever happens without the DM's approval.

Lol let me put it this way.

If the group tells the DM no, the group wins. The DM’s “authority” ends the moment it goes against the will of the group.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Let me put it this way: you don't have to accept that you're at the DM's mercy and the DM may very well give you the illusion that you're not. But at the end of the day, nothing in the game ever happens without the DM's approval.

Unless the game gives you a parcel of reliable ability that the DM can't screw with without explicitly addressing it.

That's why I cite casters, as they get this. They have abilities that are clear and specific in how they work so when you do them, they work that way you expect, pass or fail. They get the peace of mind that they don't have to beg and wheedle to do what they're trying to do.

 

[Charlaquin]

Being told the problem is all on our end for not forcing our DM to stop and let us rest is not helpful.

That’s not what I’m saying, at all.

Not if WOTC is claiming huge feedback saying Warlocks need more better recharging. It can’t be just an us issue.

I mean, clearly the issue is playstyle-dependent, since it seems to come up for some groups and not for others. I wouldn’t interpret that as “it’s a you issue,” but nor would I say it’s an inherent design issue, since, again, a lot of groups don’t experience the issue at all. But more importantly than whose issue it is, can the issue be fixed for those groups who do experience it, without harming what the groups who don’t experience it like about the Warlock? I think the answer is yes. We’ve already seen that the Channel-style recovery suggestion has some acceptance from both groups.

“I know better than you” is certainly annoying, and I hope I haven’t done that. I’ve only stated how our games go, and the fact that I’ve heard other people talk about not getting the expected rests, it would seem we’re not completely alone. I’m certainly not saying other posters are lying when they say their adventures have sufficient rests. I’m just saying that hasn’t been my experience.

I don’t doubt that has been your experience, and the experience of many others. I do find the notion of the DM allowing or disallowing the party to rest pretty alien, and I suspect the discrepancy may have a lot to do with different degrees of risk-aversion.

 

[cbwjm]

And then we're back to the five minute work day. "Oh, you blew 14 spell slots that fight? Guess I have to let you take a long rest now or the next fight will unfairly kill you."

There are simply times when it's not possible (story-wise) to take a rest. Maybe some groups are allowed to stop the plot any time they want, but that goes against the grain for us. Maybe this is just an us problem, and we really are just bad at this. But I don't think we're the only ones who are running up against the Short Rest issue.

In all the games I've played in and ran, players ask if it is safe to take a short or long rest, they don't just say they're having one. I've had to say no before, in one case it was in an undead infested swamp and there was no way to rest safely.

 

[Asisreo]

Lol let me put it this way.

If the group tells the DM no, the group wins. The DM’s “authority” ends the moment it goes against the will of the group.

If the whole group including the DM has a disagreement and can't compromise at all, then the game is pretty much at a point where it won't be fun to continue. At that point, that's the true gameover state.

While the DM can compromise for the group, they can also put their foot down and say "no, you can't both take 5 days to dillydally and save the princess about to be sacrificed in the ritual on the day of her capture." Of course, a DM that is constantly exerting authority will lose the group, but that's what trusting the DM is.

If you're scared the DM is going to intentionally screw you over, then isn't it better to find another DM?

Unless the game gives you a parcel of reliable ability that the DM can't screw with without explicitly addressing it.

That's why I cite casters, as they get this. They have abilities that are clear and specific in how they work so when you do them, they work that way you expect, pass or fail. They get the peace of mind that they don't have to beg and wheedle to do what they're trying to do.

It has nothing to do with how reliable the ability is because what matters is the result.

For example, you don't cast invisibility just to be happy that you're invisibile. You're trying to not be seen. So while technically you did turn invisible, the result is that you really wasted your spell slot if the monster in question has truesight. And if a creature has truesight, blindsight, or tremorsense, that was in the hands of the DM.

You can't avoid the arbitrations of the DM, you can only hope that they're in your favor.

 

[The Shadow]

Sorcerer - Love, love, love the changes here. Super flavorful. Wouldn't mind if Subtle spell changed to a class feature that doesn't use metamagic and instead comes online by picking 1 component type at 1st, 5th, 11th and then remove expendable material components at 17th.

I don't think that sorcerers should really need material components at all (except in rare cases where the material component is part of the whole point, like Magic Jar). They're living fonts of magic, they shouldn't need that kind of thing. Verbal and somatic, sure, shaping their magic takes effort.

 

[OB1]

I don't think that sorcerers should really need material components at all (except in rare cases where the material component is part of the whole point, like Magic Jar). They're living fonts of magic, they shouldn't need that kind of thing. Verbal and somatic, sure, shaping their magic takes effort.

Agreed, that would be my second suggestion, that at level 1 you don't need material components, but that leaves Subtle a bit underpowered, hence my working the entirety of Subtle into class abilities where eventually you don't need any components as you level up.