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]

Sometimes less is more.

But if less is more, think about how much more will be.

 

[Marandahir]

You say that is if it's somehow true and not just made up fantasy nonsense.

I guess what I mean is that when it comes to the tropes of the D&D Wizard, it's very much in the intellectual and categorical, almost proto-scientific space. So Wizards would find it important to split between the disciplines.

Meanwhile, there already IS a Sorcerer subclass that combines Nethermancy and Necromancy -- the Shadow Magic Sorcerer - and they draw specifically magicl from the Shadowfell. Sorcerers are more impacted by the origin of the magic that is behind the spell; Wizards are more about how can be write/draw/say/formulize spells to bring forth magic? A Shadowfell Wizard is very possible to make, I'd just argue it's not something that belongs in the official core WotC material - at least not before a bunch of other concepts.

I do think one could argue for dual-discipline schools, where Wizards are drawing from both Illusion and Necromancy, for example. They've done this once with the War Magic Tradition, which draws from both Abjuration and Evocation. I honestly would love a Beguiller a la the 3.5e PHB2 that is a Wizard tradition specifically focused on combining Illusion and Enchantment. But if a Wizard is doing that, they're combining specific spell schools. Nethermancy, like Pyromancy, were REALLY WEIRD choices for spell schools that were sort of square peg round hole tropes. Pyromancy itself was only in a Dragon magazine article, if I recall. Nethermancy was in Heroes of Shadow, and was trying to force the Shadowcaster concept from 3.5e Tome of Magic into the Wizard. This is something WotC were doing in general during D&D Essentials - somehow Witches and Sha'ir also got crammed in as Wizard subclasses despite sharing more with Druids, Sorcerers, and Warlocks (Witches) and just plain Warlocks (Sha'ir), narratively. At least the 3.5e Binder got to fit into the class that made sense for it - the Warlock!

Anyway, I was mostly making a off-handed comment as I was reading through the thread about what I though regarding the concept of combining these and tying a Wizard to the Shadowfell. It just felt more Sorcerer to me, and of course we have that in Sorcerer already. But of course if you want it in your game you can make it happen!

 

[Faolyn]

They have repeatedly said that Eberron is an objectively superior setting to others. If they had just said it was their favorite and they liked the way it did this and that, and didn't out down other settings explicitly, I would have had no objection.

Levistsus has literally said that they don't think it's the objectively best setting. What they've said is that they think it's best for the game rules. System rules and setting lore and setting metaplot and general quality are four very distinct things. And only three of those things are needed for a game to be good.

If Eberron is made better than other settings, then why not "upgrade" one or more of those settings to comply with those improvements? The claim is that Eberron is better designed. If WotC believes that, they should want to bring their other settings up to that standard.

They literally did that: Ravenloft 5e. And you have spent a couple of years complaining about how it's objectively bad and how it ruined the setting. To be frank, I have a gut feeling that it was complaints like this from that kept them from putting decent lore in Spelljammer. If they're going to be damned if they do and damned if they don't, then they might as well not put in the effort.

Also, it's Levistsus's claim (that it's best for the rules, not for the game as a whole), not WotC's claim. To the best of my knowledge, WotC has not actively come out and said Eberron is the objectively best setting. So your entire argument here relies on Levistsus is speaking on behalf of WotC, which they aren't.

 

[Aldarc]

You want to combine two thematically similar things. That's at least one fewer option.

This feels like a very Spinal Tap "these go to eleven" sort of argument. Combining two thematically similar things has no bearing on the number of actual character options that exist. It's about fluff rather than options.

I guess what I mean is that when it comes to the tropes of the D&D Wizard, it's very much in the intellectual and categorical, almost proto-scientific space. So Wizards would find it important to split between the disciplines.

Meanwhile, there already IS a Sorcerer subclass that combines Nethermancy and Necromancy -- the Shadow Magic Sorcerer - and they draw specifically magicl from the Shadowfell. Sorcerers are more impacted by the origin of the magic that is behind the spell; Wizards are more about how can be write/draw/say/formulize spells to bring forth magic? A Shadowfell Wizard is very possible to make, I'd just argue it's not something that belongs in the official core WotC material - at least not before a bunch of other concepts.

I do think one could argue for dual-discipline schools, where Wizards are drawing from both Illusion and Necromancy, for example. They've done this once with the War Magic Tradition, which draws from both Abjuration and Evocation. I honestly would love a Beguiller a la the 3.5e PHB2 that is a Wizard tradition specifically focused on combining Illusion and Enchantment. But if a Wizard is doing that, they're combining specific spell schools. Nethermancy, like Pyromancy, were REALLY WEIRD choices for spell schools that were sort of square peg round hole tropes. Pyromancy itself was only in a Dragon magazine article, if I recall. Nethermancy was in Heroes of Shadow, and was trying to force the Shadowcaster concept from 3.5e Tome of Magic into the Wizard. This is something WotC were doing in general during D&D Essentials - somehow Witches and Sha'ir also got crammed in as Wizard subclasses despite sharing more with Druids, Sorcerers, and Warlocks (Witches) and just plain Warlocks (Sha'ir), narratively. At least the 3.5e Binder got to fit into the class that made sense for it - the Warlock!

Anyway, I was mostly making a off-handed comment as I was reading through the thread about what I though regarding the concept of combining. Of course if you want it in your game you can make it happen!

Still made-up fantasy nonsense, but now with a higher word count! I still see no reason why Nethermancy and Necromancy couldn't just be combined as Shadowfell magic. It's not like it has any objective truth in reality.

 

[Faolyn]

But if less is more, think about how much more will be.

Depends on the individual. Some people have choice paralysis. I've a friend who has told me that he's not interested in Level Up because he wants a simpler game, not one with a million choices.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

But if less is more, think about how much more will be.

A quote that I think of often is "if I had more time, I would have written you a shorter letter." There is virtue in brevity and efficiency.

If you can accomplish the same themes, stories, and rules with one option that you can with two, having two separate things is unnecessary and harmful, because it's redundant, wastes space, and doesn't provide anything of value.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm never going to be in favor of having fewer choices.

If the game of Go is ever going to take off it's going to need more options.

 

[Maxperson]

Levistsus has literally said that they don't think it's the objectively best setting.

He has also said repeatedly and without any hard evidence that it is objectively better to do what Eberron did and not have metaplots. And he repeatedly ignores requests to provide the hard evidence that would prove the objectivity of his claim.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

He has also said repeatedly and without any hard evidence that it is objectively better to do what Eberron did and not have metaplots. And he repeatedly ignores requests to provide the hard evidence that would prove the objectivity of his claim.

What kind of proof would you accept?

 

[Maxperson]

What kind of proof would you accept?

Hard evidence that you are correct. All we have that I have seen provided by you and others is subjective. You like the changes or you don't like the changes that metaplots bring. This is backed up by people who like the changes and dislike the changes. Liking or disliking something is not objective.

What hard evidence are you using to make the claim that having no metaplots is objectively better than having them?