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

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.

Claim Unearthed Arcana now! - D&D Beyond

www.dndbeyond.com

​

 

[Stalker0]

I don't think that sorcerers should really need material components at all (except in rare cases where the material component is part of the whole point, like Magic Jar). They're living fonts of magic, they shouldn't need that kind of thing. Verbal and somatic, sure, shaping their magic takes effort.

200% agree, this should be THE thing that defines that initial sorceror flavor, that truly differentiates them from other magic users.

"You need bat guano? How.....quaint"

 

[Michael Linke]

Player: "How did the goblin archers sneak past my DC 30 passive perception" (btw one of my players has such a passive perception so this is not an exaggerated example).

The DM of course can always do what they will, but many DMs do like to maintain consistency and flavor in their game...and that becomes the chain that binds the DMs hands, not the players.

As a DM, of course I could fill a woods with red dragons if I wanted to challenge my players, nothing can stop me..... but suddenly the consistency of my world falls apart, and as a DM I don't want to do that.

So yes, I would much rather the system be designed in a way that naturally balances player actions, rather than me having to apply DM corrections constantly to keep things in check.

Short bows have a 320 foot range. No, your passive perception isn’t a spidey sense for every single thing that moves in a 320 foot radius.

 

[Michael Linke]

Lol let me put it this way.

If the group tells the DM no, the group wins. The DM’s “authority” ends the moment it goes against the will of the group.

The group gives the DM permission to occasionally tell them “no”. I don’t know how you can call it D&D, otherwise.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The group gives the DM permission to occasionally tell them “no”. I don’t know how you can call it D&D, otherwise.

First, pronounce the 'D' as 'dee', then proceed to pronounce the ampersand as 'an-duh', and finally pronounce the second 'D' in the same manner as the first.

Nothing about D&D is defined in the quoted manner.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well no, the group wins if either:

1) The DM relents and agrees to change to the will of the group.
2) The DM quits and another one of the group is willing to take on the large burden of DMing, and that new member is at least as good if not better than the DM that quit.

If neither of these happens, then no one wins.

This feels like nitpicking, to me. What am I missing?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The group gives the DM permission to occasionally tell them “no”. I don’t know how you can call it D&D, otherwise.

How does this contradict “the group can tell the DM “no”?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The group gives the DM permission to occasionally tell them “no”. I don’t know how you can call it D&D, otherwise.

Beyond the clarification needed, here, um…easily? It’s D&D because we are playing…D&D?

 

[Michael Linke]

How does this contradict “the group can tell the DM “no”?

It doesn't. It contradicts the part where you say "If the group tells the DM no, the group wins." " The DM’s “authority” ends the moment it goes against the will of the group." The will of the group INCLUDES the desire to be told "no" where it's appropriate.

Edit: Dyslexia may have impacted how I read this: "If the group tells the DM no, the group wins.", but i gathered from your statements that DMs aren't allowed to tell the group "no", or that a "no" from the group always trumps the DM's decisions. If that's not what you meant, then interpret my posts as observation, rather than debate.

 

[Michael Linke]

Beyond the clarification needed, here, um…easily? It’s D&D because we are playing…D&D?

I don't buy into that "if we call it D&D, then it is" sentiment. There are fundamental rules that make a game what it is, and if you're disgregarding them, you're playing something else. If I tell you we're playing D&D at my place, and you show up, and we're just doing improv, isn't that kind of confusing? Even if you like improv, wouldn't it have made more sense to say "We're doing improv at my place."

One time (we were really young), I played chess with a friend, and he said something vague like "you gotta take out all the pieces" before we started. I thought he meant "make sure none of the pieces are missing before we start". I check-mated his king and declared victory, and he was really mad "NO! I said you have to kill ALL of my pieces. You agreed. That's how we're playing." That game wasn't chess. It was some nonsense he made up. After I understood what he meant, it sounded interesting, but it wasn't my fault for thinking he meant "chess" when he agreed to play chess.

Edit: yeah, i understand that D&D can eponymously refer to TTRPGs in general, but I would only use it that way in a context where what we're playing doesn't actually matter. Like, if I don't want to explain to my mom that there's other RPGs out there, it's easier to say "I couldn't answer my phone, cause we were playing D&D.", but I'm unlikely to use the term D&D to talk about "roleplay" in any case where I think that would confuse expectations of players.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It doesn't. It contradicts the part where you say "If the group tells the DM no, the group wins." " The DM’s “authority” ends the moment it goes against the will of the group." The will of the group INCLUDES the desire to be told "no" where it's appropriate.

‘Kay. So…literally what I’ve said several times in this thread, ie, the DMs authority exists entirely upon the agreement of the group to grant said authority, and ends when the group decides it ends.

Edit: Dyslexia may have impacted how I read this: "If the group tells the DM no, the group wins.", but i gathered from your statements that DMs aren't allowed to tell the group "no", or that a "no" from the group always trumps the DM's decisions. If that's not what you meant, then interpret my posts as observation, rather than debate.

Nope. Not what I said, meant, implied, nor in any other way indicated.

I don't buy into that "if we call it D&D, then it is" sentiment. There are fundamental rules that make a game what it is, and if you're disgregarding them, you're playing something else.

Unless I’m confusing actual players at my table, this entire tangent does not matter.

Even beyond that, I just fundamentally disagree, and even beyond that, “if we call it D&D, then it is” isn’t even what I said. What I did say does not mean the same thing as the statement you are misattributing to me.

If we are sitting down playing D&D classes, with D&D math, in a D&D setting, and dealing with D&D NPCs, and D&D combat and skill rules, we are playing D&D.

How much power the DM has is just not definitive of the game.