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]

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.

My point is, there is no evidence that Eberron actually is objectively better than other settings, and no official statement has ever been made (or is likely ever to be made) saying such. As a result, value statements about settings are subjective and opinion-based, which is the crux of my disagreement with @Levistus's_Leviathan .

I like Eberron fine. I just don't see it as the objectively best setting, and there is no evidence to suggest that Keith Baker or WotC see it that way either.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Heh. Try being a 4e fan.

From everything I've been reading around here, 4e fans have a good amount of company on this site. As I recall, rpg.net is heavily in favor of 4e as well.

 

[Hussar]

Just a thought about meta-plot. We should remember that other than Dragonlance (which obviously was created alongside the novels), none of the D&D settings started with anything like a meta-plot. Greyhawk most certainly didn't. All those 1e modules were never meant to be a single story. Forgotten Realms didn't have a meta-plot either. Not until the 2e changeover and they needed a way to explain the edition changes so we got the Dead Gods trilogy. Mystara most certainly never had a meta-plot.

Meta-plot is a 2e thing mostly. Meta-plot represents a significant change for the settings from what they originally were presented as. All 5e has done is return back to that original approach. Which is EXACTLY what people were crying for when 5e was released. They wanted everything reset. Go back to the good old days. Bring back old school style when the game was at its best.

Well, careful what you wish for. You got exactly what you asked for. You rejected the new and insisted on the old. WotC is just giving you what you said you wanted.

Let's not forget, before 4e was a thing, 2e was roundly reviled for its meta-plot and terrible stories. 2e was the red-headed stepchild of the editions. 3e was a rejection of 2e. Back to the dungeon, remember? And Realms Shaking Events are also pretty widely regarded as a very bad thing. 4e's Spellplague was entirely rejected, but, various other RSE's were never very popular. And the Greyhawk Wars are extremely contentious in Greyhawk circles. Faction War was a big splitting point between Planescape fans.

Every time they try to do some sort of meta-plot that changes the setting, all it does is fraction the fan base of that setting and, in some cases, kills the setting dead.

Not really a surprise that they are not doing that anymore.

 

[Hussar]

From everything I've been reading around here, 4e fans have a good amount of company on this site. As I recall, rpg.net is heavily in favor of 4e as well.

So an entire edition based around rejecting everything 4e, the complete inability to even HAVE discussions about 4e elements, and dev's specifically taking public dumps on 4e is good company? Dude... It was so bad back in the day that specific topics had to get their own forums because it was impossible to have a discussion about them without becoming a massive dump truck of a dumpster fire.

This? This is nothing. And, again, you asked the question and you got the answer. You might not like the answer, fair enough, but, it is asked and answered.

 

[Incenjucar]

I think the most important thing is to avoid having meta-plot replace the core. As a Planescape fan, all I had to do to reject the Faction War was to never buy that book - in fact I only recently downloaded it from Drivethrough the other day out of curiosity. As long as each edition still provides the core details and rules, it's fine if they have a Possible Future splat. Heck, they can have multiple divergent timelines if they want. Just don't stop printing the rules for the original moment in the next edition. Sodkillers? Sure. Still give me Mercykillers rules.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

My point is, there is no evidence that Eberron actually is objectively better than other settings, and no official statement has ever been made (or is likely ever to be made) saying such. As a result, value statements about settings are subjective and opinion-based, which is the crux of my disagreement with @Levistus's_Leviathan .

I like Eberron fine. I just don't see it as the objectively best setting, and there is no evidence to suggest that Keith Baker or WotC see it that way either.

I don't think Eberron is objectively the best setting. Its focus on magitek, noir and subversions and deconstructions of tropes from other settings is of a different genre/theme than base D&D, so it would never work as the core or main setting. It would be like using Don Quixote as an example of the typical stories of chivalrous knights. Eberron is only brilliant if you know what its subverting and deconstructing.

However, I do think that some major aspects of its design are objectively better for the game than the alternatives many settings used before it. Like how it forbids metaplot and objective canon, how it's designed with the intent of the DM making it their own, and a few other big aspects of how it was designed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

To be fair, you're on record for not caring about settings at all, metaplot or no metaplot, so it's unlikely we'll ever see eye to eye on that score.

The only thing WotC does that I do care about is setting-based, because legally no one else can make stuff for their closed IP. Hopefully, the DMsguild will make good Dragonlance and eventually Planescape stuff when WotC relaxes their grip. There are certainly plenty of Ravenloft products on there that help me forget VGtR. Spelljammer is still a little light, but I have faith they'll get there.

I'm dropping my crusade for metaplot though. Clearly most folks here are in favor of WotC current take, so there's no point to continuing with it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think Eberron is objectively the best setting. Its focus on magitek, noir and subversions and deconstructions of tropes from other settings is of a different genre/theme than base D&D, so it would never work as the core or main setting. It would be like using Don Quixote as an example of the typical stories of chivalrous knights. Eberron is only brilliant if you know what its subverting and deconstructing.

However, I do think that some major aspects of its design are objectively better for the game than the alternatives many settings used before it. Like how it forbids metaplot and objective canon, how it's designed with the intent of the DM making it their own, and a few other big aspects of how it was designed.

If that's true (and I will admit you make a fine argument), why hasn't WotC either re-made a more traditional setting, like the Realms or Greyhawk) or re-introduced an appropriate setting (like Nerath) or produced a new setting that adheres to the design aspects and values you are so convinced are objectively better? Greyhawk in particular would be a great candidate for that treatment, as it's metaplot was always pretty thin. Nerath would work great that way too.

 

[Faolyn]

My point is, there is no evidence that Eberron actually is objectively better than other settings, and no official statement has ever been made (or is likely ever to be made) saying such. As a result, value statements about settings are subjective and opinion-based, which is the crux of my disagreement with @Levistus's_Leviathan .

I like Eberron fine. I just don't see it as the objectively best setting, and there is no evidence to suggest that Keith Baker or WotC see it that way either.

Hasn't Levistsus repeatedly said that their opinions on what's better isn't the same thing as what's best to be published? Or am I confusing them with someone else? There's a lot of people on the thread, but I know I've seen people say things like "In my opinion, X is better" and you respond with "you're saying it's objectively better."

But anyway, I also think they've said that Eberron takes the rules of the game into account better than other settings do, which quite probably is objectively true. For example, it was built with the magic item creation rules taken into account, allowing for magic items to be a more prominent part of the setting and to take the place of technology--as opposed to the Realms, which still can't decide if magic items are common or rare but whichever they are, they have no actual bearing on the setting's history.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So an entire edition based around rejecting everything 4e, the complete inability to even HAVE discussions about 4e elements, and dev's specifically taking public dumps on 4e is good company? Dude... It was so bad back in the day that specific topics had to get their own forums because it was impossible to have a discussion about them without becoming a massive dump truck of a dumpster fire.

This? This is nothing. And, again, you asked the question and you got the answer. You might not like the answer, fair enough, but, it is asked and answered.

I'm talking about now. 4e design elements are starting to creep back in to the game, I suspect because the designers want them there. Given the apparent popularity of the playtest packets, most of those elements will likely stick. This site is certainly more 4e friendly than it was. Obviously not everyone likes it, but I think things are better in 2022 if you're a 4e fan. I played and ran 4e for over a year, and followed it throughout, and while it wasn't what I wanted, it was a solid game that obviously had a lot of fans.