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.

​

 

[tetrasodium]

I think you're missing my nuance.

Cunning strike is a quality of life change. It gives the rogue new toys and options, but it doesn't change the fundamental gameplay loop of the rogue. If you didn't like what the rogue was doing in 14, cunning strike isn't going to change that.

The same is true of something like wild shape. If you fundamentally hated using monster manual stat blocks for your wild shape, the limited # of choices per day isn't going to fix that. It certainly doesn't fix the other issues with stat blocks other than the temp HP issue.

Basically, they are aiming for people who think 5e is fine, but could be better* vs people who have issues with 5e. This isn't changing the room layout, it's some fresh paint and new curtains. If you already liked the room, that's not a problem, but if you were going for change, it's not enough to keep you in a place you don't already like living in. The best case scenario is someone who was straddling the fence after looking at the playtest so far and starting to look at 5e clones might instead think the changes are less radical and opt for the 24 books instead.


* Obviously they are aiming for new players too, but that's I feel irrelevant to changes between 14 and 24.

Except cunning strike is broken AF because this packet is made with a heavy dose of assuming that whatever character has the ability being described is The Main Character who is surrounded by a table of sidekicks or paid extras who are only there to declare how cool they are.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Basically, they are aiming for people who think 5e is fine, but could be better* vs people who have issues with 5e. This isn't changing the room layout, it's some fresh paint and new curtains. If you already liked the room, that's not a problem, but if you were going for change, it's not enough to keep you in a place you don't already like living in.

This is a cute little metaphor, but it doesn't address the fundamental problem that none of that makes it "not an edition", because 1E-2E was that level of change, arguably D&D to AD&D was that level of change, 5E to Pathfinder 2E is about that level of change.

What you're proving is that fundamentally, it's an edition, that just like 2E, aims to keep what they see as an existing market, rather than either:

A) Regain a lost market.

or

B) Approach a new market.

(Or both)

 

[tetrasodium]

Considering that 5E is the most popular version of D&D of all time.. why anyone would think WotC would move away from that, rather than just fix the few things that could be better is beyond me.

If you had major issues with 5E14, why would you even want to consider the idea of playing 5E24? Just how good did you think it was going to be?

Because a statement like "DMs are 20% of the audience but lions share of purchases" to a shareholder conference makes for a pretty good reason to focus a bit more on the needs of DMs in the core rules. To date not a single question has been asked in the one d&d surveys that could allow even identifying the preferences of that 20%

 

[Remathilis]

Mate mate mate mate mate, mate mate mateyson. Maaaaate.

It's not going to happen.

This is as much a new edition as 2E was. No amount of DARVO is going to fix that. You predicted wrong. Your buddy Treatmonk who said "the big changes are over" before this came out - he was wrong. But what you're doing, ironically, is edition-warring. It's first stages, but we can presumably expect you to be yelling at people referring to the new edition as an edition for the entire next decade lol.

Nope. This is barely more than what Tasha and MotM did. What are the major changes we've seen so far?

• Redone races: Monsters of the Multiverse already rewrote nearly all the game supplemental races in the new format. This is just updating the PHB races to that standard.
• First level feat: a rule that's been in every setting since Strixhaven. As has been the general changes to backgrounds.
• New class features: Tasha's pretty much set the template for adding new and replacing class features. Due to the fact they are reprinting each class, they can make larger changes (such as changing all subs to start at 3rd or giving the bard a different spell list) but no class's main gameplay loop has been radically altered. This is some eratra and QoL options made standard.
• Weapon mastery could have been an alternative feature option in a supplement. It's nice that the base classes account for it, but it still feels built atop the combat system rather than a core component of it.
• Spells and feats rebalancing: precedent in Xanathar's (Elemental Evil spells) and racial feats like deep gnome magic.
• Monster rebalancing: see MotM.
• Three spell lists: while technically a larger change, it isn't as radical as it first appeared. It fixes the lackluster lists of the sorcerer and warlock with the wizard and makes the paladin and ranger share the spell list of their full caster brothers. The largest change is to bard who now instead of getting one mediocre spell list gets to pick a good one at first and then gets all of them at 10th.

Bigger changes like wild shape and (presumably) pact magic are going to remain. Short rest recharges remain. Bonus actions are more important than ever.

It's the equivalent of a super-splat plus eratra'd reprint. It's MotM: core rules edition. It barely qualifies to move the 5,x counter a tick. (depending on if you call post Tasha's 5.1 or not). The only thing it has going for it is that it resets the base assumptions so that dark elves and astral elves have similar design goals. It's changes aren't really rising to the level of 3.5, let alone 2e.

 

[Cruentus]

Except cunning strike is broken AF because this packet is made with a heavy dose of assuming that whatever character has the ability being described is The Main Character who is surrounded by a table of sidekicks or paid extras who are only there to declare how cool they are.

I thought that was the assumption about how all the characters were to be treated by everything?

I was cautiously following the changes that WOTC was putting forth, and was happy for some of what I was seeing, and became a little optimistic, since I had already dropped 5e to step back to older editions. Then they started walking it back, and buffing some more, and not really addressing the things our group had issues with, and now I'm back to not going to touch it, not even as a source to pull interesting mechanics, because, as far as I can tell, there is no innovation. And I get it, "biggest RPG", "keeping users", etc., but they'll shed them just as well, or not get them back.

I feel like I did with Next, where the last playtest stuff was interesting, and then we got the actual PHB, which didn't look like the last playtest(s)...

All IMO, obviously. YMMV, etc.

 

[Remathilis]

Except cunning strike is broken AF because this packet is made with a heavy dose of assuming that whatever character has the ability being described is The Main Character who is surrounded by a table of sidekicks or paid extras who are only there to declare how cool they are.

Cunning strike will be balanced, not removed, before the 24 PHB hits.

And even if it isn't, that's fine. I played a thief in 2e and 3e to high level. I remember the days the mage could do my job sneaking and lockpicking better than me. I remember sitting out fight after fight as we fought undead, constructs and other immune to crit creatures. If the wizard and cleric want to cheer ME on as sidekicks while I do the cool stuff for a change, I'll consider that payment for 40 years of karma.

 

[mamba]

This is as much a new edition as 2E was.

I’d like you to make that case, I don’t see it. This is pretty much as they said, more Tasha level changes.

Not that 2e was requiring an edition change anyway

No amount of DARVO is going to fix that. You predicted wrong. Your buddy Treatmonk who said "the big changes are over" before this came out - he was wrong.

spot on seems more like it, minor revisions, not even a 5.1

 

[mamba]

If that's the mark of an edition, 1E-2E wasn't an edition, and in fact, almost no RPG has ever had an edition. Really 4E is most edition edition that ever editioned by that logic.

I agree with all of this, doesn’t change anything about what 2024 is, namely just more 5e

 

[mamba]

The best case scenario is someone who was straddling the fence after looking at the playtest so far and starting to look at 5e clones might instead think the changes are less radical and opt for the 24 books instead.

I am kind of leaning the other way on that…

Pretty sure I will end up with the 24 books and the clones and cobble together my own little Frankenstein, but my interest in the playtest has hit rock bottom. Have no interest in looking at the latest one. I will instead take a closer look at what the Kobolds sent out

That being said, I am more interested in the big picture than all the minor details, I am not interested in figuring out whether something should deal a point of damage more to be balanced or not.
All the big ticket items seem to have a conclusion, and mostly the one I did not want.

So 24 might end up being an improvement relative to the starting point, but a disappointment relative to what it could have been

 

[DEFCON 1]

Because a statement like "DMs are 20% of the audience but lions share of purchases" to a shareholder conference makes for a pretty good reason to focus a bit more on the needs of DMs in the core rules. To date not a single question has been asked in the one d&d surveys that could allow even identifying the preferences of that 20%

And when they said these initial playtests were going to be about character-focused material, you didn't hear them say that because...?