• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D (2024) New One D&D Playtest Includes 5 Classes & New Weapon Mastery System

Barbarian, Fighter, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard

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.


 

log in or register to remove this ad

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
This is a sentiment that doesn't really have any foundation. Its pretty obvious WoTC isn't trying to please D&D fans.

They have a clear vision and that's because they have to have a clear vision. If not for the good of design, its much more likely in order to hold their IP position more firmly. That's why they're not retreading in the direction of Pathfinder. If they want to grab certain concepts like "The Barbarian that gets a damage bonus and resistance on rage" then it has to be original or else in court people will say "You can't claim that, Pathfinder did it first."

That vision, though, may not be what the majority of fans want and its something they likely won't pull back from unless they step away from Hasbro, which isn't likely.

For example, a very clear vision for them is that spells and magic items are a foundation for the game. Almost like a hidden 4th pillar. If a DM wants to run a mundane game, they're going to have to make their own adjustments. Wizards will always have more options than fighters and that's not something they want to change.

In that sense, the disparity is by design and is seen as a good thing in their eyes as it gives each of those classes a marketable identity.
I can't think of a better reason to include a game element than, "it's marketable". 😉
 

log in or register to remove this ad

zedturtle

Jacob Rodgers
Something else I've only just had brought to my attention is the barbarian's feral instincts. I'm fine with the bonus skill, I'm not so keen on being able to make certain skill checks with strength. Intimidation is already a skill I allow as a strength check but it just seems stupid to me for strength to be used for things like perception. I think it would have been better to use the rage damage bonus as a bonus to these skills rather than making them a strength check, the damage bonus representing the "primal power coursing through you" I feel works better. You could even rename rage damage to primal power and have it affect various other barbarian features.

I think your suggestion is a good one that will help DMs and players at the table. That said, I could easily see a 'while enraged, your excess adrenaline causes you to notice the most minor of things, giving you a bonus to Wisdom (Perception) checks' as an explanation, if they wanted to write out a justification for each edge case.
 



Asisreo

Patron Badass
And pray tell who counts as "the fans," and who gets to decide...? I'm pretty sure getting 80%+ approval from the people willing to take their surveys counts as listening to fans.
The fans aren't deciding the overall vision, though. They don't ask fans what they want out of fighters, just how they rank and how their features rank for approval. They don't ask questions like "should fighters have a system similar to spells?" Because they weren't going to give them that anyways.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
The fans aren't deciding the overall vision, though. They don't ask fans what they want out of fighters, just how they rank and how their features rank for approval. They don't ask questions like "should fighters have a system similar to spells?" Because they weren't going to give them that anyways.
They did ask what people wanted in the giant Class survey in '21. These designs are in response to survey input.
 

Stalker0

Legend
The main issue with modify spell is it gives an easy way for wizards to convert gold into power.

Unless things change, gold is “relatively worthless” to most classes, but suddenly is a solid power boost to the wizard. That’s a concern
 

Asisreo

Patron Badass
They did ask what people wanted in the giant Class survey in '21. These designs are in response to survey input.
I remember that survey. They had narrow questions that gave them plausible deniability when it came to large changes. I can't remember the specifics but there weren't any questions asking specifically for a spell-like system for martials or even a huge overhaul for them in general iirc.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I remember that survey. They had narrow questions that gave them plausible deniability when it came to large changes. I can't remember the specifics but there weren't any questions asking specifically for a spell-like system for martials or even a huge overhaul for them in general iirc.
There was plenty of room for feedback, so I'm sure if there was a groundswell of people asking for a spell-like system for martials they would know. As someone who likes playing Champion Fighter as is, I doubt such a groundswell exists at any scale.
 

Huh. Because you can only either equip or unequip a weapon per attack, and dropping a weapon is the same as packing it away now... the golfbag of weapons doesn't even work that well at higher Fighter levels. You need to use your free item interaction just to replace a weapon for a different attack.

EDIT: I'm specifically referring to 3rd attack using a 3rd weapon, which could actually happen without being a high-level Fighter...
 
Last edited:

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top