D&D (2024) One D&D Cleric & Revised Species Playtest Includes Goliath

"In this new Unearthed Arcana for the One D&D rules system, we explore material designed for the next version of the Player’s Handbook. This playtest document presents the rules on the Cleric class, it's Life Domain subclass, as well as revised Species rules for the Ardling, the Dragonborn, and the Goliath. You will also find a current glossary of new or revised meanings for game terms."

Claim Unearthed Arcana now! - D&D Beyond

www.dndbeyond.com

WotC's Jeremey Crawford discusses the playtest document in the video below.

 

[Faolyn]

Maybe somebody will start a new thread where we can actually discuss the new packet.

I like the new goliaths! I actually did something similar for my Handbook of Heritages book for Level Up, so I'm glad to see that WotC is obviously taking my lead on the subject. (Next stop: royalties.)

I actually liked most of the things in this packet, and I can see using some of them in my 5e games--since I have no desire to "upgrade" to One when it comes out.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Maybe somebody will start a new thread where we can actually discuss the new packet.

I've started two. One for the cleric class and one for the races

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, uh, that means you gonna take 5e Ravenloft on its own merit?

Funny. 5e Ravenloft was designed to  replace the existing story, so no, I'm not going to accept it. The same world, not called Ravenloft and full of Ravenloft proper nouns, would have been perfectly fine.

 

[Faolyn]

Funny. 5e Ravenloft was designed to  replace the existing story, so no, I'm not going to accept it. The same world, not called Ravenloft and full of Ravenloft proper nouns, would have been perfectly fine.

So, you realize this is hypocrisy here. It's not magically OK because it's "replaces" anything.

(And unless WotC came and stole all your books, it doesn't replace anything.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, you realize this is hypocrisy here. It's not magically OK because it's "replaces" anything.

(And unless WotC came and stole all your books, it doesn't replace anything.)

It was designed to replace the old lore. That undeniable.

I don't understand your first point. I'm saying its not "magically ok"  because its a replacement (not an adaptation like a book to a film) and not a new story.

 

[Faolyn]

It was designed to replace the old lore. That undeniable.

I don't understand your first point. I'm saying its not "magically ok"  because its a replacement (not an adaptation like a book to a film) and not a new story.

I wasn't clear and wrote badly. If it's not OK for people to constantly talk about a thing they prefer, then it's also not OK for you to do the same.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I wasn't clear and wrote badly. If it's not OK for people to constantly talk about a thing they prefer, then it's also not OK for you to do the same.

I'm fine with people expressing their preference, I would just rather they express it in a way that doesn't put down other preferences. If you like 5e Ravenloft, fine. You don't have to denigrate previous Ravenlofts to exalt your own, or settings with proven gods to exalt your setting without them.

I admit I'm far from perfect about this. Just try to avoid insulting other people's preferences.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I've never tried to tear down Eberron though, just explained why its not my favorite campaign setting.

Sure, but you critiqued people repeatedly giving a "big up" to Eberron's approach to religion, and my point is Eberron's approach is genuinely good and smart and more D&D settings could benefit from a similar approach.

I'm going to say it - the Forgotten Realms would be a significantly better, more convincing and more interesting setting with an Eberronian approach to religion (especially the bloody afterlife).

Also sorry but a lot of D&D settings, certainly include the FR, have a very badly-handled and confused approach to religion which causes a wide variety of problems for them and makes them less immersive and compelling than they could be (weirdly I think Greyhawk maybe isn't one of them, but maybe I don't know enough about Greyhawk).

 

[Faolyn]

Also sorry but a lot of D&D settings, certainly include the FR, have a very badly-handled and confused approach to religion which causes a wide variety of problems for them and makes them less immersive and compelling than they could be (weirdly I think Greyhawk maybe isn't one of them, but maybe I don't know enough about Greyhawk).

To be fair, that would also completely rewrite the Time of Troubles, which would rewrite a lot of FR history. Whether that rewrite would be better or worse, I can't say.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I like homogenising subclass structure, and I hope this in future will lead to some crossclass subclasses.

I'm not familiar enough with clerics to much comment the changes, though it seems to me that going for strength cleric still isn't a great option. Like is there any particular benefit for hitting enemies with weapons (that requires investing to both strength and wis) over just hitting them with cantrips (requiring only wis and usually allowing to keep your distance if you so desire)?

Can't say I really like the genasi-goliaths. I just want them to be big strong folk, not magical, elemental, size-changing folk. It is pretty different tone. Also, can my size-changing goliath carry around a large greatsword (with 4d6 damage) and use it when enbiggened?