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.

​

 

[FitzTheRuke]

'Incompetent combatant' seems appropriate to describe most of the monsters and stuff the fighters goes after.

You mean how they are or how they should be? Personally, I think most monsters ought to be competent.

A squad of goblins with the morningstars their people cannot possibly make according to the narrative around them are going to go down like green bowling pins against a dude who's training with the weighted chain for years on end.

I don't know. I mean, Goblins might not make their morningstars (though that would be up for debate) but they certainly use them. I would think that a creature that narratively spends a lot of its time involved in squabbles would actually get pretty good at using the weapons they carry. Or they'd already be dead.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This has been on my mind for a while.

I'm young, 29, have only been DMing frfr this edition. It seems to me that the game has always told us to use it as a guideline to create our own content for our own table. But it seems somewhere along the way, people just screw that, we all have to play the SAME game the SAME way and if you want to homebrew or create anything you have to spend YEARS proving to the entire world that its not busted trash or else why even make it?

And the funniest part to me about what I think is your astute statement is that it would at least be understandable to me if everyone who thought we should be playing the same game actually used the game we already have to do that, LOL! If people said "We all have this D&D game... it's bound in hardcover and written out for us and printed in full color, nicely edited, used by hundreds of thousands of people... why aren't we all happy just playing this?"... I could kind of understand it.

But instead... some people want us all to play the same game of theirs that they have made up in their head of what they think D&D should be. "D&D 5E has a lot of problems and is really bad in many ways... the only sensible choice is for them to fix these X number of things that I think need to be fixed and should be fixed in this Y way... and then once they do so, the book should be published so that everyone can use my corrections too."

We as gamers have all created millions of pieces of D&D material over the last 50 years-- some published in books, some in magazines, some on websites, some just kept in binders on our shelves. And we can pick and choose whatever bits we want to use to create our game. But like you say... that's the operative word-- create. Use what you have, and create what you don't. And if WotC doesn't publish it in a book for others to use... it should never be a skin off our nose.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You mean how they are or how they should be? Personally, I think most monsters ought to be competent.

Competent at killing? Yes. Competent at fighting? I feel it depends.

Like how much practice does a bear have having their legs tangled and being pulled over?

I don't know. I mean, Goblins might not make their morningstars (though that would be up for debate) but they certainly use them. I would think that a creature that narratively spends a lot of its time involved in squabbles would actually get pretty good at using the weapons they carry. Or they'd already be dead.

They're traditionally depicted as being... cartoonishly stupid to the point that no, they should already be dead. D&D's weird attitude toward the intelligent species you're meant to rob and kill puts them somewhere south of chimps in terms of intelect and combat skill. And living in conditions where is is impossible that they're forging metal or practicing with weapons more complicated than bonk sticks. A trained soldier using combat techniques would have a field day.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'll never understand why someone with your experience and desire to create so relentlessly crusades against mainstream 5E. I get not being the target audience anymore, but my man, have they not endowed you with the skills necessary to create the D&D you've always wanted to play?

I like engaging with the community, and most of it is heavily invested intellectually with whatever WotC is doing (or not doing) at any point in time. With the exception of IP-based campaign settings (a sore subject to the point of berserk button for me), I don't really care what WotC does to the game.

In short, the community engages with 5e almost entirely filtered through WotC, so if I want to be part of the community I need to engage with what other people talk about.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I am still baffled at how we're not supposed to be discussing and evaluating changes to the game on a forum dedicated to discussing and evaluating changes to the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You mean how they are or how they should be? Personally, I think most monsters ought to be competent.


I don't know. I mean, Goblins might not make their morningstars (though that would be up for debate) but they certainly use them. I would think that a creature that narratively spends a lot of its time involved in squabbles would actually get pretty good at using the weapons they carry. Or they'd already be dead.

I really wish I knew what this was in response to.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I am still baffled at how we're not supposed to be discussing and evaluating changes to the game on a forum dedicated to discussing and evaluating changes to the game.

We absolutely can. But if some of your discussions and evaluations are estimated by others to be not that good... people will respond back. That should not be a shock to any of us. You think every time I make my "D&D is a board game" crack I'm not expecting a half-dozen posters coming back to tell me to STFU? Of course I am! LOL! Same way I assume you know full well every time you make your "WotC makes lazy design decisions" claim you're going to receive pushback as well.

That's what ENWorld is all about!

 

[Shardstone]

I am still baffled at how we're not supposed to be discussing and evaluating changes to the game on a forum dedicated to discussing and evaluating changes to the game.

Im more interested in solutions then in people repeating problems without solutions. Its like weve been stuck on the same episode for 50 years and instead of finding a way out we just ignore solutions to instead repeat the problem.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Absolutely. The issues as I see them are 1) making the game about X and not explaining it is a problem, and 2) replacing the #1 RPG with X without being reasonably sure that your customer base evens wants X is a bigger problem. You are telling the people that you want buying your product that they should go elsewhere if they don't want X, without actually telling them.

I don't think they realized just how much of the audience would have any problem with X. They also probably thought that they'd explained themselves sufficiently. Heck, I think it's taken the 15 years of the edition wars for most people to even understand the nuances of the actual differences, rather than the perceived ones.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Competent at killing? Yes. Competent at fighting? I feel it depends.

Sure, yeah, it definitely depends. I think Goblins ought to be generally competent at skirmishing, even if their favorite tactic is to "hit 'em an' den runaway!"

Like how much practice does a bear have having their legs tangled and being pulled over?

Well, not much, but you'd still have to be pretty good at that tactic to pull it off against them!

They're traditionally depicted as being... cartoonishly stupid to the point that no, they should already be dead.

Yeah, I've never bought that line of thinking. I mean, I'm fine with them being somewhat comedic, but when the chips are down, they ought to be pretty dangerous.

But then, I've never had goblins (or orcs for that matter) all be evil, either. Or all be any one thing at all.

D&D's weird attitude toward the intelligent species you're meant to rob and kill puts them somewhere south of chimps in terms of intelect and combat skill. And living in conditions where is is impossible that they're forging metal or practicing with weapons more complicated than bonk sticks. A trained soldier using combat techniques would have a field day.

I suppose. I guess I've studied enough history to have a lot of respect for (ahem) "primitive" peoples. I guess I've always seen that sort of thing as lies told by their enemies. (Including PCs). It's how the Bard tells the tale, not what actually happened.