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.

​

 

[mamba]

But WotC already knows what people think of Wildshape currently. The question they were trying to solve was how to help people who were intimidated by too many options, and Templates and the limits on known Wildshapes are two solutions that they tried out. Helping a small percentage of people buy alienating most is an inferior solution to pleasing a larger slice of everyone.

I am not seeing small percentages here, it might not have gotten to 70%, but it got around 50%. Your statement about large slices and small percentages is generally correct, it just does not really apply to things where the worst rated stuff is in the 50-60% range. No matter how you slice and dice it, there are large percentages on both sides.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am not seeing small percentages here, it might not have gotten to 70%, but it got around 50%. Your statement about large slices and small percentages is generally correct, it just does not really apply to things where the worst rated stuff is in the 50-60% range. No matter how you slice and dice it, there are large percentages on both sides.

In any close vote, you're guaranteed to have a lot of unhappy people.

 

[Parmandur]

I am not seeing small percentages here, it might not have gotten to 70%, but it got around 50%. Your statement about large slices and small percentages is generally correct, it just does not really apply to things where the worst rated stuff is in the 50-60% range. No matter how you slice and dice it, there are large percentages on both sides.

But we don't have any particular reason to believe that anything in the game falls that low as it stands. If you have an option that currently has a satisfaction of 75%, then a new option that loses satisfaction by not making 70% isn't going to fit the design function of improving the game.

The scenario of "69% of people are dussatisfied with X, and 31% are stopping change" doesn't exist in the current situation. To make any change, it needs to keep the people currently satisfied on board, as well as hopefully widen the circle of satisfied people.

 

[mamba]

But we don't have any particular reason to believe that anything in the game falls that low as it stands. If you have an option that currently has a satisfaction of 75%, then a new option that loses satisfaction by not making 70% isn't going to fit the design function of improving the game.

I am still not buying your premise that a 69% approval for a change means that fewer people like the change than whatever the current version at 75% approval is. To me it most likely is a more popular option than whatever we have now. That is the whole point of having a 70% threshold, approval is relative to what we have now, not absolute.

I grant you that assuming a 75% approval of the current version, not getting the change is not going to ruin the game.

 

[Parmandur]

I am still not buying your premise that a 69% approval for a change means that fewer people like the change than whatever the current version at 75% approval is. To me it most likely is a more popular option than whatever we have now. That is the whole point of having a 70% threshold, approval is relative to what we have now, not absolute.

I grant you that assuming a 75% approval of the current version, not getting the change is not going to ruin the game.

But on what basis do you think it likely that a a lower result is somehow more popular than what came bwfore and polled well...?

The 70% approval is an absolute, for the feature being proposed. There is no question "how does this compare to what was in the game before?" There is no relative comparison, just the absolute result versus the prior absolute result. That’s why they have the threshold set the way that they do: they arengoinf to.make a change that is absolutely less satisfying to their customers base compared to the existing, working rule.

 

[mamba]

But on what basis do you think it likely that a a lower result is somehow more popular than what came bwfore and polled well...?

I have been trying to explain this for the last 5 posts, not sure another one helps...

Things are not rated in a vacuum. If something gets rated, it gets rated in comparison to the existing version, esp. since an approval of below 70% means we are stuck with the current version. This alone already ensures that it is a comparison (also, the fixed 70% threshold does, if these were independent ratings, then 70% would not work as a threshold as an absolute 70% would still be lower than an absolute 75% or 77% or whatever of the current version).

The 70% approval is an absolute, for the feature being proposed. There is no question

There very much is, see above. It makes no sense as an absolute... WotC does not treat it as one either. The 70% threshold is a hurdle it has to clear for them to say this change is sufficiently better to be worth their time implementing it. It is not a rating that exceeds the current version's percentage, but it is better by a large enough degree for WotC to use it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I have been trying to explain this for the last 5 posts, not sure another one helps...

Things are not rated in a vacuum. If something gets rated, it gets rated in comparison to the existing version, esp. since an approval of below 70% means we are stuck with the current version. This alone already ensures that it is a comparison (also, the fixed 70% threshold does, if these were independent ratings, then 70% would not work as a threshold as an absolute 70% would still be lower than an absolute 75% or 77% or whatever of the current version).


There very much is, see above. It makes no sense as an absolute... WotC does not treat it as one either. The 70% threshold is a hurdle it has to clear for them to say this change is sufficiently better to be worth their time implementing it. It is not a rating that exceeds the current version's percentage, but it is better by a large enough degree for WotC to use it.

There have been things in the low 80s that didn’t go through because too many of the 80% of the respondents gave “meh” qualitive feedback, indicating, “this is a good feature. I could live with it.” Which isn’t good enough.

 

[mamba]

There have been things in the low 80s that didn’t go through because too many of the 80% of the respondents gave “meh” qualitive feedback, indicating, “this is a good feature. I could live with it.” Which isn’t good enough.

that is not contradicting my point, it just means WotC looks for more than just the percentage and also weighs written responses (which only makes sense...)

 

[tetrasodium]

I agree with your two questions, but I disagree with most of the survey being set up this way

If WotC e.g. asks whether people like the wildshape templates, do you think people who do not approve of them do so because they do not like the current implementation of them, or because they prefer monster statblocks? I am sure it is a mix, but the end result of it not getting approved absolutely is that we stay with stat blocks, so this is not just a matter of do you like sports cars, the question is do you like sports cars better than the trucks we currently have, because if you do not approve, then you are stuck with the truck.

I think that I gave them lukewarm support'* and acomment about the reprehensible failure of basic design that the numbers involved demonstrate seem chosen almost to ensure rejection. Someone who strongly dislikes itis automatically going to be worth twice as much in the averages before considering they both of us are individually providing a vote worth 2.33 times more than someone who loves it because they believe 2014 moon druid is "too strong" as well as someone who strongly approves because they love the idea of templates.

No I don't think so. Your question cannot be even weakly inferred by the question wotc asked because it's both undefined in what part they are asking about and uselessly specific in its focus on a nebulous term. There is probably a polling for dummies book or similar that could improve a lot of these questions.

*slightly dissatisfied? Mildly approve?

 

[Hussar]

I thought that might be it. Are you pretending that incremental change isn’t change, or do you genuinely not get that it is?

Ahh. We’re back to the pedantic portion of the program. Well that’s me out.

Considering we’ve Venn talking about significant change vs incremental change for several pages now, I’ve zero interest in semantic wankery. You have a good day now.