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.

 

[Hussar]

Eberron is a horrible comparison because it's been explicit from day one that the novels weren't canon, it's one of the reasons the novel line failed.

The opposite has been true of FR and Dragonlance, the novels have always been canon, it's a core part of those settings and part of why those novel lines succeeded, they actually meant something.

Umm, what is your criteria for a "successful novel line"?

 

[Maxperson]

1) Metaplots change the setting without input from the players. This is bad because it takes agency away from them whenever the metaplot updates.

No. This is wrong. First the players don't have any right to input. The company owns the setting. Second, no agency is taken away since they never had any agency over the company's setting in the first place.

The only time they have input or agency is in their home game and they get to decide which if any metaplot changes happen, so company metaplot changes aren't really relevant. As an example, I run the Forgotten Realms and don't like either the Spellplague or Sundering, so they never happened. I also like King Azoun, so he never died. What the company did had no impact on my home game at all.

2) No. The "fix" to metaplots is to rewind the clock to when the setting first started.

That isn't necessary in every game, though, so it's not some sort of universal issue. For the many who like the changes, there's nothing to rewind.

However, Eberron points out that metaplots aren't good or necessary by not having them and still having all the benefits other settings gain from their metaplots.

And if that's what Eberron points out, Eberron is partially wrong. Metaplots may not be necessary, but they are neither good or bad. They just are.

Eberron cannot fix problems with other settings, because it is not those other settings.

And because they aren't actually problems of the other settings. They're personal issues. Either YOU like it, or YOU don't.

How do you not see that removing a potential problem that other settings have is a problem? New DMs exist and often make mistakes like including DMPCs. The setting not including any potential non-PC heroes lowers the potential of the happening.

That's what advice is for. The solution is not to ruin things for people who aren't making those mistakes and the ones who can and do learn from mistakes(and we all make mistakes). The solution is to give good advice to the DM on how not to make them in the first place. Advice, not changes to the rules or settings.

That's a solution to a problem other worlds have.

This is objectively false. The problem lies 100% with the DM who runs a DMPC. DMPCs are not setting specific.

That's better than the alternative.

Show me your objective proof of that? Because all I've seen from you so far are personal opinions and unsubstantiated claims of "metaplot bad!"

Other times, it's just better.

To you.

 

[JEB]

Umm, what is your criteria for a "successful novel line"?

Making it to the New York Times Bestseller list probably counts, which both the FR and Dragonlance novel lines have managed.

 

[Hussar]

Making it to the New York Times Bestseller list probably counts, which both the FR and Dragonlance novel lines have managed.

I would amend that a bit.

Some of the novels have achieved that. The overwhelming majority have not. Most of the hundreds of novels on each line were utterly forgettable.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Umm, what is your criteria for a "successful novel line"?

Longevity and high numbers published. Eberron novels largely died with 3e. FR novels started in 1e and lasted almost continuously since, lasting decades. Over 300 FR novels published. That is a successful novel. Eberrin did okay, but I think the lack of stakes in the settings future hurt it's (same with Pathfinder novels) because it never impacts that setting at all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You might have liked it, but that doesn't mean that it's good for the game. Again, you're having a hard time separating "things I like" and "things that are good for the game". There may be a Venn Diagram between those two categories with a pretty substantial area of overlap, but there is a huge difference between "things I liked" and "things that are good for the game/should stay a part of it".

You need to see the difference. Liking metaplots is fine, and the enjoyment you got from them is valid, but wanting them to be a part of the game when they're overall bad for the hobby isn't.

I don't recall ever saying what I like is good for the game. I like it, and I want things I like in the game. Its pretty straightforward.

 

[Micah Sweet]

1) Metaplots change the setting without input from the players. This is bad because it takes agency away from them whenever the metaplot updates.

2) No. The "fix" to metaplots is to rewind the clock to when the setting first started. However, Eberron points out that metaplots aren't good or necessary by not having them and still having all the benefits other settings gain from their metaplots.

Eberron cannot fix problems with other settings, because it is not those other settings. At best, it can shine light on the problems with other settings and offer solutions to fix them.

How do you not see that removing a potential problem that other settings have is a problem? New DMs exist and often make mistakes like including DMPCs. The setting not including any potential non-PC heroes lowers the potential of the happening. That's a solution to a problem other worlds have.

Eberron doesn't have a huge problem with metaplot every edition because it doesn't have a metaplot. That's better than the alternative.

No. Eberron's takes on canon, non-PC heroes, and some other aspects of the world are just objectively better for game settings than they are in other worlds. A lot of the time Eberron is just "different" because it supports different playstyles and preferences. Other times, it's just better.

Has Keith Baker ever said he thinks his setting is "just better" than other settings? This is your opinion. You like it better. If I have to accept that what I like might not be good for the game, you have to accept that what you like might not be objectively superior. You have to see the difference.

 

[Scribe]

Has Keith Baker ever said he thinks his setting is "just better" than other settings? This is your opinion. You like it better. If I have to accept that what I like might not be good for the game, you have to accept that what you like might not be objectively superior. You have to see the difference.

From all I have read on his blog or snippets here or there, no. Baker does not come across as being arrogant enough to make such claims

 

[Henadic Theologian]

1) Metaplots change the setting without input from the players. This is bad because it takes agency away from them whenever the metaplot updates.

2) No. The "fix" to metaplots is to rewind the clock to when the setting first started. However, Eberron points out that metaplots aren't good or necessary by not having them and still having all the benefits other settings gain from their metaplots.

Eberron cannot fix problems with other settings, because it is not those other settings. At best, it can shine light on the problems with other settings and offer solutions to fix them.

How do you not see that removing a potential problem that other settings have is a problem? New DMs exist and often make mistakes like including DMPCs. The setting not including any potential non-PC heroes lowers the potential of the happening. That's a solution to a problem other worlds have.

Eberron doesn't have a huge problem with metaplot every edition because it doesn't have a metaplot. That's better than the alternative.

No. Eberron's takes on canon, non-PC heroes, and some other aspects of the world are just objectively better for game settings than they are in other worlds. A lot of the time Eberron is just "different" because it supports different playstyles and preferences. Other times, it's just better.

Not every setting has to be Eberron, other settings have other priorities as the driving force, FR has it's transmedium interests into account and it's history as living setting to take into account.

And the fact that FR has been more successful then Eberron literally for decades attests to the strength of FRs approach.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Btw Eberron as static setting is likely coming to a close with it's integration with the broader cosmos, it just gets in the way of adding Eberron to a DDU (the D&D Cinematic universe that is coming).