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

​

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Not true. The DM doesn't have to run the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

That's on them though. I've had people ask for rests too, but they don't have to. They can just try it and see what happens. Player agency and all that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

IME that’s rare, but sure.

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.

They can if the group allows them to. Otherwise, no, they can’t.

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

No one is “scared” of thier DM. What a weird conclusion to draw.

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.

you can, however, stop, and tell the DM “no, you’re not going to invalidate all the cool things our characters can do at every turn. We aren’t here to play Gygaxian adversarial D&D.”

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not true. The DM doesn't have to run the game.

And the game can continue without them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

IME that’s rare, but sure.

They can if the group allows them to. Otherwise, no, they can’t.



No one is “scared” of thier DM. What a weird conclusion to draw.

you can, however, stop, and tell the DM “no, you’re not going to invalidate all the cool things our characters can do at every turn. We aren’t here to play Gygaxian adversarial D&D.”

By that argument, shouldn't those things not exist in the game at all in your view, or maybe just for PCs?

 

[Micah Sweet]

And the game can continue without them.

Not the same game it can't. The group can go on, sure.

 

[Autumnal]

dying isn't a condition anymore? Nor exhausted (I admit I'm not sure either matters as a condition).

I had a moment of “yeah, it’s a spell now”.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

By that argument, shouldn't those things not exist in the game at all in your view, or maybe just for PCs?

I can promise you that I’m never going to engage with nitpicking the details of an example.

Not the same game it can't. The group can go on, sure.

Yep, same game. I’ve done it several times, usually bc the DM couldn’t commit to running the game anymore.

 

[Asisreo]

They can if the group allows them to. Otherwise, no, they can’t.

Put their foot down? Yeah, its well within their right not just as a DM but as a person. If the DM doesn't want to play the type of game the players do and don't feel like compromising, that's it for the game. Maybe another DM can fulfill that role, but it won't be the same game.

No one is “scared” of thier DM. What a weird conclusion to draw.

Its not being scared of the DM like he's the boogeyman. Its being afraid that the DM is intentionally biased or hostile to your character/class/race/etc. That's a real anxiety players can feel, especially when they aren't very familiar with the DM.

you can, however, stop, and tell the DM “no, you’re not going to invalidate all the cool things our characters can do at every turn. We aren’t here to play Gygaxian adversarial D&D.”

Like I said several posts ago, it isn't to invalidate the players. It might have just been what made sense in fiction. But it was still under the DM's control.

Besides, what's stopping a martial from saying the same exact thing? Its one thing to not let a fighter split the planet with a strength check but if the DM is saying no to even innocuous skill checks, then that's clearly bias as well and should be called out, yeah?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can promise you that I’m never going to engage with nitpicking the details of an example.

Yep, same game. I’ve done it several times, usually bc the DM couldn’t commit to running the game anymore.

I would posit that continuing the same campaign under a new GM is unusual, but I can't rule it out.