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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, they really were.

If anything, they were a reaction to games like Vampire, which were very florid in their writing and were heavy in metaplot, in contrast to the much drier, more encyclopedia-esque way 1e had been written, where history was written in the form of long, dull timelines. I don't think I've ever managed to read a timeline in even Ravenloft without getting bored halfway through. Vampire and similar games changed the way games were presented, and TSR had to keep up--because gamers want to enjoy the game books they're buying, not just stick them on a shelf and only read them when they needed a rule clarified.

But they were still intended to be used to help people play their games. That's why game companies also put out novels and comics--and in the case of Vampire, a TV show--for people who wanted to enjoy the world as a story and not a game.


You yourself constantly talk about how WotC is doing things just for the money. That's why. People have nostalgia for old games. People want to see the setting-specific rules officially updated. WotC can produce those books and sell them.

So they really think Eberron is better, but they still sell other stuff for $$?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, they really were.

If anything, they were a reaction to games like Vampire, which were very florid in their writing and were heavy in metaplot, in contrast to the much drier, more encyclopedia-esque way 1e had been written, where history was written in the form of long, dull timelines. I don't think I've ever managed to read a timeline in even Ravenloft without getting bored halfway through. Vampire and similar games changed the way games were presented, and TSR had to keep up--because gamers want to enjoy the game books they're buying, not just stick them on a shelf and only read them when they needed a rule clarified.

But they were still intended to be used to help people play their games. That's why game companies also put out novels and comics--and in the case of Vampire, a TV show--for people who wanted to enjoy the world as a story and not a game.


You yourself constantly talk about how WotC is doing things just for the money. That's why. People have nostalgia for old games. People want to see the setting-specific rules officially updated. WotC can produce those books and sell them.

Also, I'm a huge history nerd, so stuff like that is like catnip to me. I'm really going to miss it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

shouldn't characters and races be backward compatible with what we have?

They are. You will be able to play a game with 2014 characters and 2024 characters in the same party.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They are. You will be able to play a game with 2014 characters and 2024 characters in the same party.

Maybe, but the intent of 6e core is clearly not to be compatible with 5e core.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Maybe, but the intent of 6e core is clearly not to be compatible with 5e core.

I haven't seen 6e yet, but One D&D clearly is compatible.

Note that "compatible" is not synonymous with "identical", nor does it necessarily require "seamless".

 

[Faolyn]

So they really think Eberron is better, but they still sell other stuff for $$?

Why wouldn't they?

Assuming WotC actually does think Eberron is better (I have no idea if they do or not and I very much doubt that there will ever be an official statement on it), there are still lots of people who are neutral towards it or actively don't like it, and lots of people who really like the other settings.

Plus, Eberron isn't as generic as the Realms and some other official settings are, therefore harder to steal ideas from, therefore will be less popular amongst people who strictly use homebrew settings.

And D&D is a basically a mega-company that wants to have many people play their game, not a smaller one who is happy to produce a single setting and only cater to people who like that one setting.

 

[Faolyn]

Also, I'm a huge history nerd, so stuff like that is like catnip to me. I'm really going to miss it.

It's still there, in the existing books. You haven't lost anything because you already own the books.

Feel free to do whatever everyone else in the history of fandoms has ever done when their fandom of choice has gone in a direction they don't like: write a fixit fanfic that does what you actually want the fandom to have done. I've read a bunch of "everyone lives" fics for Rogue One, for instance.

 

[Hussar]

I dislike 5e Ravenloft because it officially ended pre-5e Ravenloft, and I liked that story. It's clearly an emotional reaction for me.

Look, I'm allowed to like metaplots, and wish the game I grew up with and loved still had them. I would feel no different is there was no more new Star Wars, or Star Trek, or Marvel comics. That's what the metaplots of D&D were to me, and until quite recently, even if they weren't really being continued, I could still imagine they were. Now, they explicitly aren't.

WotC decided that what I enjoyed most about D&D wasn't worth continuing, and when I complained, most of what I hear is that what I like is, "bad for the game" and shouldn't have ever been there in the first place, and I should just get over it. And apparently being angry about that is unreasonable.

Why should I feel bad about wanting things in the game that I like? I'm not the one taking things away.

There are two things to keep in mind here.

1. You got what you wanted for twenty or thirty years. I had to wait that long to get what I wanted. I didn't want meta-plot. I don't read settings just to read them. I wanted settings that I could use in my game without having to do what I felt was too much work removing the meta-plots and working around them. So, while yes, it's bad for you that you are not getting what you want anymore, there is still the point that you got what you wanted for a very, very long time.

2. The reason that meta-plot is being removed from the settings is that meta-plot makes settings harder to sell. Which is bad for the company that makes the products. It's nothing to do with your or my personal preferences, it's simply market forces. In other words, it's not personal. And coming in to every single thread for the past two years and complaining about the same thing over and over again is not exactly an endearing trait. You've repeatedly claimed that you aren't playing D&D, WotC doesn't make what you want, and you've moved on to a new game. Great. Fantastic. Join the club. But, again, it's not personal.

 

[Hussar]

It's hard to ignore stuff you don't like if people are constantly talking about how great it is on the site you use to engage with your hobby.

Honestly, I was just hoping for a little sympathy here. How would you like it if something that brought you great joy was unceremoniously ended, and your peers in the community loudly declared how much better things are without the things that you liked? I refuse to believe that that's a weird attitude to have.

Edit: also, I love all the metaplots you list here (except the video game ones, because I'm not familiar with them).

Heh. Try being a 4e fan.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

So they really think Eberron is better, but they still sell other stuff for $$?

"Designed better for the assumptions of the game" doesn't mean "more profitable than every other settings combined".