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

​

 

[Vaalingrade]

You can't avoid the arbitrations of the DM, you can only hope that they're in your favor.

In this case, it isn't about the possibility of DM abuse, it's about consistency. Sure, some monsters have truesight, but you're still invisible. You aren't flickering in and out of view, you aren't leaving a Predator heat haze effect -- you're invisible.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Put their foot down? Yeah, it’s well within their right not just as a DM but as a person. If the DM doesn't want to play the type of game the players do and don't feel like compromising, that's it for the game. Maybe another DM can fulfill that role, but it won't be the same game.

It will be if we want it to be.

DMing isn’t magic. I mostly DM, and I can’t imagine seeing things the way you describe, nor would my friends put up with it if I did.

The game changes, sure, just like if a player leaves. It ends when the group decides it ends, whether directly or by simply not continuing it.

Its not being scared of the DM like he's the boogeyman. Its being afraid that the DM is intentionally biased or hostile to your character/class/race/etc. That's a real anxiety players can feel, especially when they aren't very familiar with the DM.

I mean…you’d have to view the DM as having real authority for that to make any sense, so I don’t ever see that in my group, so I can’t really comment on it.

Like I said several posts ago, it isn't to invalidate the players. It might have just been what made sense in fiction. But it was still under the DM's control.

It’s an example. It doesn’t matter whether the DM is doing a given thing to invalidate something. The point is that the group can tell the DM no. Simple as that.

Besides, what's stopping a martial from saying the same exact thing? Its one thing to not let a fighter split the planet with a strength check but if the DM is saying no to even innocuous skill checks, then that's clearly bias as well and should be called out, yeah?

I’m not sure what you’re addressing here.

I would posit that continuing the same campaign under a new GM is unusual, but I can't rule it out.

Unusual or not, it shows that the game is made and owned by the group, not one member thereof.

 

[Asisreo]

It will be if we want it to be.

DMing isn’t magic. I mostly DM, and I can’t imagine seeing things the way you describe, nor would my friends put up with it if I did.

The game changes, sure, just like if a player leaves. It ends when the group decides it ends, whether directly or by simply not continuing it.

I mean…you’d have to view the DM as having real authority for that to make any sense, so I don’t ever see that in my group, so I can’t really comment on it.

It’s an example. It doesn’t matter whether the DM is doing a given thing to invalidate something. The point is that the group can tell the DM no. Simple as that.

I’m not sure what you’re addressing here.

Unusual or not, it shows that the game is made and owned by the group, not one member thereof.

Look, I get what you're saying, I do. The game is communal and it's not very conducive for the DM to act like a ruler.

But that's not the point I'm getting at. A DM exists to be an arbiter of the rules and to design and run through an adventure. Without someone to do those things, the game cannot function.

And with an open-ended game like D&D, someone has to have a final say in the edge-cases not in the rules and someone has to have made the adventure and structured it in a way that makes sense to them.

Those edge-case arbitrations and adventure designs are the DM's job and the players agree and trust that the DM isn't abusing that power for the sake of a fun experience. So if a DM says "you can't rest for 5 days and save the princess" or whatever example you want to think of, the player accept that the reason is because the DM has some mechanism behind the DM screen that would be disrupted if they did that. Maybe time tracking for other events gets wildly thrown off or the game world loses its immersive experience.

I'm not trying to say that the DM has inherent power, but that the borrowed power that the DM shares from the group is something that should be handed to the DM without concern or ire.

And the point of the whole discussion, which we can hopefully get back on track on, is that when the DM says you can or cannot rest, they're not doing it to bully the players, but because they know more about the adventure than the player and they think that something might break. Maybe it won't, but again, that's trust. Even if they screw up, its fine if they aren't doing it out of malice and try to do better.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Look, I get what you're saying, I do. The game is communal and it's not very conducive for the DM to act like a ruler.

But you don't get it, because you're still phrasing it as the DM shouldn't act like a ruler. No. The DM is not a ruler.

But that's not the point I'm getting at. A DM exists to be an arbiter of the rules and to design and run through an adventure. Without someone to do those things, the game cannot function.

Sure, but that doesn't actually put them in charge of the decisions of player characters in any way, nor rob the other players of the ability to put their foot down just like the DM can.

And with an open-ended game like D&D, someone has to have a final say in the edge-cases not in the rules and someone has to have made the adventure and structured it in a way that makes sense to them.

Those edge-case arbitrations and adventure designs are the DM's job and the players agree and trust that the DM isn't abusing that power for the sake of a fun experience. So if a DM says "you can't rest for 5 days and save the princess" or whatever example you want to think of, the player accept that the reason is because the DM has some mechanism behind the DM screen that would be disrupted if they did that. Maybe time tracking for other events gets wildly thrown off or the game world loses its immersive experience.

Nope. The DM can communicate that the world keeps moving while they spend time doing downtime stuff, but the DM has no right to tell the players that their characters cannot make a given decision, outside of the kind of veto power everyone at the table has, ie "that is problematic or will ruin the game for other people at the table, please stop."

I'm not trying to say that the DM has inherent power, but that the borrowed power that the DM shares from the group is something that should be handed to the DM without concern or ire.

That's great for your table. It is not necessary, though. I can assure you that the game runs fine when everyone at the table understands that the DM has a role that is different from the players, but is not above them or a position of authority in any normal sense.

And the point of the whole discussion, which we can hopefully get back on track on, is that when the DM says you can or cannot rest, they're not doing it to bully the players, but because they know more about the adventure than the player and they think that something might break. Maybe it won't, but again, that's trust. Even if they screw up, its fine if they aren't doing it out of malice and try to do better.

I mean...if an adventure is going to break because someone takes a short rest...it's poorly designed.

 

[Asisreo]

But you don't get it, because you're still phrasing it as the DM shouldn't act like a ruler. No. The DM is not a ruler.

What I mean is that he isn't a ruler so he shouldn't act like one. I do get it.

Sure, but that doesn't actually put them in charge of the decisions of player characters in any way, nor rob the other players of the ability to put their foot down just like the DM can.

That wasn't what I was saying either.

Nope. The DM can communicate that the world keeps moving while they spend time doing downtime stuff, but the DM has no right to tell the players that their characters cannot make a given decision, outside of the kind of veto power everyone at the table has, ie "that is problematic or will ruin the game for other people at the table, please stop."

Obviously its not the decision-point the DM has control over, but they do have control of the results. So yes, a DM can't tell a barbarian "no, they can't try to turn invisible with deep breathing exercises," but he can say "the breathing had no effect." Just like a DM can't tell the party to not try to take a short rest, but he can say that the result is they get ambushed or routed and don't gain the benefits anyways.

That's great for your table. It is not necessary, though. I can assure you that the game runs fine when everyone at the table understands that the DM has a role that is different from the players, but is not above them or a position of authority in any normal sense.

I feel like you have the idea that I'm talking of a dictator DM. One that rules with an iron fist. What I mean is more like a presidential DM, a DM that does have power, whether you want to admit it or not, but that power is granted to them by the players and can be taken away. But that doesn't mean they don't have more power. Just as you'd say a level 20 wizard has more power because they have more control over the game than a level 1 wizard. A DM has much more power because they have much more control over the rules.

I mean...if an adventure is going to break because someone takes a short rest...it's poorly designed.

I don't disagree, but not all DM's are as great at designing adventures as others and that's okay too. Sometimes, its okay for the players to give the DM slack if they know they're new and trying their best.

 

[dalisprime]

It seems like they drop it considering after first UA that rule didn't got reprint. And personally I am fine with it due to you need to be really really lucky to have successfully explode 5 dice after you crit. And 15d6+30 damage after Lv.17 ( have highest chance to got full explode) is more of an life's little surprise than balance destroying loophole.

Might be missing something here but how are you getting that amount? 4d6(base) doubled to 8d6 on a crit + up to 6d6 from exploding dice so 14d6 at absolute most. Draconic sorcerer can then add +6 to the roll if the damage type matches their affinity. Granted their level 10 feature makes this even more lethal since you can crit multiple enemies with the breath but the elemental affinity will only ever apply to one damage roll and the exploding dice are hard capped at your ability mod so you may end up spreading them out between targets rather than going all in against one.

With all that said...draconic exhalation makes this spell horribly broken given that both are at will features that cost no resources.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Might be missing something here but how are you getting that amount? 4d6(base) doubled to 8d6 on a crit + up to 6d6 from exploding dice so 14d6 at absolute most. Draconic sorcerer can then add +6 to the roll if the damage type matches their affinity. Granted their level 10 feature makes this even more lethal since you can crit multiple enemies with the breath but the elemental affinity will only ever apply to one damage roll and the exploding dice are hard capped at your ability mod so you may end up spreading them out between targets rather than going all in against one.

With all that said...draconic exhalation makes this spell horribly broken given that both are at will features that cost no resources.

No, it is not horribly broken, I played warhammer frpg back in the day with uncapped exploding d6 as the crit mechanic, I did not regard it as broken. It was a major feature of the flavour of the game. The odds of hitting the cap are very long and this will be rare enough that I would give it to the player.

 

[Nadan]

Might be missing something here but how are you getting that amount? 4d6(base) doubled to 8d6 on a crit + up to 6d6 from exploding dice so 14d6 at absolute most. Draconic sorcerer can then add +6 to the roll if the damage type matches their affinity. Granted their level 10 feature makes this even more lethal since you can crit multiple enemies with the breath but the elemental affinity will only ever apply to one damage roll and the exploding dice are hard capped at your ability mod so you may end up spreading them out between targets rather than going all in against one.

With all that said...draconic exhalation makes this spell horribly broken given that both are at will features that cost no resources.

So there is my question, "Does the dices you got from explode also double?" "Does the dices you got from crit can help explode?"
If both question is Yes, then the damage COULD be 8d6(base dices)+10d6(exploded dice)-5d6+30(five dices have to roll 6 to have full explode)+5(if match element), just very unlikely to happened.
Once in a blue moon, RNGesus will smile upon one player, and bliss them with a full exploded, just like fabled six 18 when rolling state.

 

[dalisprime]

No, it is not horribly broken, I played warhammer frpg back in the day with uncapped exploding d6 as the crit mechanic, I did not regard it as broken. It was a major feature of the flavour of the game. The odds of hitting the cap are very long and this will be rare enough that I would give it to the player.

Let's compare it to eldritch blast. At most the damage output of that cantrip (assuming 4 crits and 22 in your casting stat) is 8d10+24 for an average of 68 vs one target. The sorcerer can do 8d6+6+6d6 (it is pretty clear that exploding dice do not get doubled on a crit and are hard capped by your ability score mod) so 55 to one target but the exhalation means he can hit more than one target causing (on a crit) additional average 28 damage per target (15 ft cone will likely hit 2 enemies). Being that this is a cantrip, the sorcerer can do it twice per round on a quicken spell. Still think this is balanced?

Also, you're comparing apples to pinecones when bringing warhammer up. The two systems have nothing in common so saying that mechanic x is fine in one, so will be fine in the other is one hell of a weird trail of thought to pursue.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Let's compare it to eldritch blast. At most the damage output of that cantrip (assuming 4 crits and 22 in your casting stat) is 8d10+24 for an average of 68 vs one target. The sorcerer can do 8d6+6+6d6 (it is pretty clear that exploding dice do not get doubled on a crit and are hard capped by your ability score mod) so 55 to one target but the exhalation means he can hit more than one target causing (on a crit) additional average 28 damage per target (15 ft cone will likely hit 2 enemies). Being that this is a cantrip, the sorcerer can do it twice per round on a quicken spell. Still think this is balanced?

Also, you're comparing apples to pinecones when bringing warhammer up. The two systems have nothing in common so saying that mechanic x is fine in one, so will be fine in the other is one hell of a weird trail of thought to pursue.

With out taking in to account the probabilities the comparison is meaningless. The damage numbers alone are not sufficient.
The max sorcerous burst is roughly a 1 in 10,000 shot, somewhat better odds than 4 crits in a row but still sufficiently remote not to be a concern outside of lottery design.
Edit: that should be a 1 in 100,000 shot. I miscounted my zeroes.

Further Edit: I will refer you to this post