D&D (2024) New One D&D Playtest Document: 77 Pages, 7 Classes, & More!

There's a brand new playtest document for the new (version/edition/update) of Dungeons of Dragons available for download! This one is an enormous 77 pages and includes classes, spells, feats, and weapons.

Unearthed Arcana Playtest

Unearthed Arcana Playtest Materials Get Unearthed Arcana playtest content, try it out in your game, and provide feedback! Check back regularly for ...

www.dndbeyond.com

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 updated rules on seven classes: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue. This document also presents multiple subclasses for each of those classes, new Spells, revisions to existing Spells and Spell Lists, and several revised Feats. You will also find an updated rules glossary that supercedes the glossary of any previous playtest document.

​

 

[CapnZapp]

5E24 not going "far enough" with their rules changes is a complaint only due to people not getting their own personal bugaboos with the rules system "fixed" and then printed up and bound in hardcover so that everyone else has to use them too.

It doesn't matter if both WotC and 70+% of the surveyor-base disagree with (general) you... (general) you know what needs to be changed to make this update worthwhile. And you've gotta fight for it and make those people understand what they're missing! Right? Right?!?

Right, the majority can't be wrong argument.

 

[CapnZapp]

Ideally, D&D would be like Monopoly

Oh please no.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Or at least as a separate line that borrows from its predecessors but is obviously intended as a fork.

Perhaps if we denoted these separate lines by version number and a massive schism of the fanbase...

 

[Pedantic]

Honestly, the real "problem" is that far too many D&D fans aren't TTRPG fans. There's a ton of innovation within the TTRPG space, it's the fact that a lot of people can't get any TTRPG game going without it being D&D that causes the desire to push desired change into D&D instead of leaving it to be evergreen.

I think it's worse than that. D&D eats up too much of the market for certain kinds of game to exist at all if they aren't D&D. Not by subject matter, but the slow expanding multiverse of rules for everything kind of game we had during the late 3e and PF1 eras (taking PF as a fluke scenario that basically stole D&D's unique position for a while) can't happen if D&D isn't doing it. Certainly not as a new game, though you see some classic examples from earlier periods in the basket holding on.

"Play other TTRPGs" is a nice thought, but there's stuff there that can only happen if D&D does it, simply because no other game has the resources or mind share to pull it off.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Right, the majority can't be wrong argument.

I wonder how you justified and defended 3E when that was new and totally different from what AD&D people probably wanted fixed. And where were you when 4E completely changed everything about 3E, despite probably nobody wanting exactly what was offered? And what was your arguments when 5E was new, likely alienating approximately 110% of the lovers of 4E?

I mean, it's not like you come across as someone defending WotC no matter what they do or don't do. Cheers

Simple. I don't see 3E, 4E or 5E as all that different. They are all pretty much the same game foundation. Nothing really new under the sun for any of these games. Now a lot of bells, whistles and coats of paint have gotten splayed over all of them to make them appear to be radically different... but at the end of the game the foundations of Dungeons & Dragons have been the same for the last 50 years.

Every edition for 50 years has been roll a 20-sided die, add a number to it, and aim for a target number. Then rolling a smaller die and adding a number to it to cause "damage" that reduces another number a character has that we call "hit points" and when that number reaches in and around 0 the character is "dead"? And even when new things get added, like having non-weapon proficiencies or skills... its pretty much the same-- roll a 20-sided die and roll over/under a target number. Basically the entire foundation of how D&D has worked has never really changed. And spray painting the game with different colors to make them seem different has never really affected me. And which is why I always am so amused when people get so up in arms about arguing about which shade of spray paint color is being used. Hey! D&D is adding some blue! Let's now spending years on end talking about how WotC seems to think that Navy Blue is what to use, when OBVIOUSLY Navy Blue sucks and is the easy choice, when a REAL critic knows that Midnight Blue is what it should be colored.

Now... had D&D ever changed their rules to use systems found in like Vampire? Like Paranoia? Like Shadowrun? Like Cypher System? THEN we might have a discussion. D&D doing a complete 180 and going full-on dice pool mechanic based and NOW we have something possibly meaningful to discuss about the changes in Dungeons & Dragons. But arguing about whether Rangers should have their special Ranger abilities just appear in their Class Features List OR be distributed in a Spell Slot Chart? That's arguing over the color blue and not worth my time. Because WHATEVER shade of blue WotC ends up coloring parts of D&D in... I'll just re-paint it myself if I don't like it.

 

[Parmandur]

For every one of him, there are those like me and my group that bought almost every book during 3.5.

Based on what WotC has said and what they have done with their product lines...seems that there are more like me than not. Heck the third group of "let the DM buy all the books in every edition" is probably larger than both by far.

 

[Parmandur]

Table-top roleplaying games must be among one of the least expensive hobbies there is.

Five people playing for hours after making a single $30 purchase. We're talking a couple of dimes per man-hour, tops. I think it's safe to assume the ttrpg dungeon master able to afford only one book each edition is not representative of the customer base.

Even then, have you tried asking your players if they'd be willing to chip in a few dollars every once in a while, considering the probably hundreds of unpaid man-hours you put into their campaign?

I have bought all the 5E books: during 3.5, analysis paralysis prevented making any purchases, because there were too many books that were kind of interesting each year, as opposed to a few books that are very interesting to me each year now.

 

[Parmandur]

Right, the majority can't be wrong argument.

If the question us "what will the majority of people enjoy in their game?" then obviously the majority cannot be wrong by definition.

 

[Parmandur]

I think it's worse than that. D&D eats up too much of the market for certain kinds of game to exist at all if they aren't D&D. Not by subject matter, but the slow expanding Multiverse of rules for everything kind of game we had during the late 3e and PF1 eras (taking PF as a fluke scenario that basically started D&D's unique position for a while) can't happen if D&D isn't doing it. Certainly not as a new game, though you see some classic examples from earlier periods in the basket holding on.

"Play other TTRPGs" is a nice thought, but there's stuff there that can only happen if D&D does it, simply because no other game has the resources or mind share to pull it off.

That is not WotC problem, selling games to as many middle schoolers, high schoolers, and Collefe students is their business. Not being all things To all people all the time.

 

[TwoSix]

Oh please no.

So, to clarify, you DO think D&D should be more of a live service, constantly evolving game, rather than staying relatively static?