D&D (2024) One D&D Expert Classes Playtest Document Is Live

The One D&D Expert Class playest document is now available to download. You can access it by signing into your D&D Beyond account at the link below. It contains three classes -- bard, rogue, and ranger, along with three associated subclasses (College of Lore, Thief, and Hunter), plus a number of feats.

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

 

[darjr]

I agree. I don't know how it's possible, but they made the class less desirable. They need to hire an outside consultant/developer since they cannot get it right.

They don't want to as it will confirm they got the entire class wrong. They have a huge ego, especially Crawford

A couple years ago I emailed him about the question on the Ranger and his general response was along the line of "phantom" people complaining about the ranger class. Phantom implying nonexistent and I take that as a personal attack.

When someone refers to you as a phantom, wouldn't you get upset? It has nothing to do with not agreeing. Many people disagree, but to be dismissive of a person is another thing.

[URL='https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford']Jeremy Crawford
[/URL]
@JeremyECrawford

Replying to
@XXXXXXXX
Alternate features for multiple classes are still a possibility, but we want to do more research before we invest time in them. We don’t want our design to chase phantoms but real desires held by a large number of players.


7:47 PM · Jul 28, 2018·Twitter for iPhone

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And to take that bizarre misinterpretation and use it to fuel spreading slander about Crawford... not cool.

I (mostly) like crawford but I can't imagine complaining about what someone actually said on social media as slander

 

[Aurel Guthrie]

I'm so excited about the new exhaustion rules. They seem a lot more realistic, and the risk vs reward of staying up researching/training/crafting/copying spells etc. actually seems worth it now. Before it went from 0 to 100 too fast, but now it's a gradual debuff that affects all aspects of your character instead of one at a time. I'm looking forward to playtesting that rule, as someone who likes roleplaying workaholic characters that like to spend sleepless nights

 

[CleverNickName]

It absolutely is, when you're saying "LFQW isn't an issue", all you're really saying is "I don't understand or accept balance issues!" I mean dunno what to say beyond that.

It's fine not to be interested in balance issues, but trying to play them down and imply others are making them up is crummy. Especially when you're doing it about LFQW, which is the equivalent of standing outside a burning house and telling people it's fine, it's just a bit warm lol.

Whatever you say, Ruin. I understand this is (and has been) an issue for some people, but I've never seen the issue. And the thing is, I really like the wizard and I play them frequently, so it's really not a lack of interest on my part.

Not sure what else I can say about it, except that I'm looking forward to seeing what WotC writes for them in a future UA.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

there are mechanical and world building implications to making these things magic (i.e. "that snare you're setting can be dispelled")

And it can lead to conflicts where a GM doesn't feel comfortable with you getting a levelled spell's effect with a skill check, if you actually try to set up a snare with Survival... let alone one with a higher DC (your Survival check) to be noticed.

 

[darjr]

Wow. Talk about hyperbole. Maybe chill out a bit dude? You and @darjr are now DOING exactly what you're complaining about - willfully exaggerating/misinterpreting. At best that's extreme hypocrisy.

You literally don't get to call something slander when the person you're accusing of it shows the actual Tweet and wording.

No I dint think so. I didn’t use slander and after one clear explanation after another ScurroNotte holds to his interpretation.

 

[Rabulias]

Jumping down to the spell lists. One thing that immediately jumps out at me is that the Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade cantrips don't seem to exist.

The blade cantrips are not likely to show up in the Player's Handbook, so they won't be covered in the D&D One playtest is my guess.

And fortunately, all these uses are still there, as far as we know. Exhaustion is simply more granular now.

And it gives added flexibility in that some more powerful effects and abilities could inflict or remove multiple levels of exhaustion at once.

That is not how I interpreted his comment.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I am guessing that English is not your first language? If that is so, be aware that idioms sometimes have difficulty jumping between languages.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I (mostly) like crawford but I can't imagine complaining about what someone actually said on social media as slander

Complaining about a response is not slander for sure! This sure is though:

They don't want to as it will confirm they got the entire class wrong. They have a huge ego, especially Crawford

 

[darjr]

In practice, yes, it can play that way, but there are mechanical and world building implications to making these things magic (i.e. "that snare you're setting can be dispelled"), and that's a problem for some of us. In practice, I don't really like the feel of a caster ranger, so in the past I've run Fighters with a dip into Rogue to simulate the magic-free version I'd prefer.

OK, I get that.

I don’t have that specific concern but I have had similar issues with dissociation in mechanics before.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I (mostly) like crawford but I can't imagine complaining about what someone actually said on social media as slander

Yes it's ludicrous. It's like my brother's five-year-old punching me in the butt (which he will do lol) and me saying it's "attempted murder" (or better yet, actual murder!).

This sure is though:

No, it isn't. Slander has a legal definition and a high bar (especially in the US). The idea that accusing someone of having a "huge ego" is slander (especially in the US) even in a colloquial sense is ludicrous hyperbole that you should be ashamed of, frankly. See my example above.

It's particularly hypocritical for you to do this in this context, too.

And to be clear, across hundreds of Tweets and interviews and so on, I would say yes, actually Jeremy Crawford does appear to possess a pretty sizeable ego. The idea that he's humble is certainly NOT well-supported by his Tweets.

That's not the same as saying he's spiteful or mean - I see none of that, which you often see with big egos - but smug? Sometimes superior or condescending? Unnecessarily dismissive? Sure. Particularly the latter. He's got a lot of form of being dismissive about stuff he later has to backpedal on.

I didn’t use slander and after one clear explanation after another ScurroNotte holds to his interpretation.

You seem to be under the rather grotesque misapprehension that because you explain your opinion to someone, they must agree with it. Even your buddy Ulorian admitted the phantoms comment was a bit ill-made.