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.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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?

You did not answer my question. What is "hard evidence" in this discussion. What proof do I need to bring to prove to you that metaplots are bad for settings and the game in general? And, as I said earlier, I did not make up my mind about metaplots and then go searching for evidence for that opinion. I originally liked metaplots. Some of my first setting ideas (one of which I posted on this site a couple years ago) were of metaplot advancements of settings. My opinion on metaplots changed when I saw the effect that they had on communities. How toxic and divisive it made them. My opinion was formed around and changed by the evidence I saw. Not the other way around.

So, I repeat the question that you dodged: What proof do I need to provide? What evidence do you want me to post?

 

[Maxperson]

You did not answer my question. What is "hard evidence" in this discussion. What proof do I need to bring to prove to you that metaplots are bad for settings and the game in general? And, as I said earlier, I did not make up my mind about metaplots and then go searching for evidence for that opinion. I originally liked metaplots. Some of my first setting ideas (one of which I posted on this site a couple years ago) were of metaplot advancements of settings. My opinion on metaplots changed when I saw the effect that they had on communities. How toxic and divisive it made them. My opinion was formed around and changed by the evidence I saw. Not the other way around.

So, I repeat the question that you dodged: What proof do I need to provide? What evidence do you want me to post?

Hard evidence is objective proof. Not based on like or dislike.

As for toxicity of metaplots on communities. I've seen far less toxicity regarding metaplots than I have regarding alignment, hit points, race, edition, etc. If that's what you're using to say metaplots should go away, then we need to get rid of all the hot button mechanics that are also divisive.

 

[Marandahir]

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.

Sure, and I'm not going to convince you otherwise. But if less is more, then why not work with what we already have in the Shadow Magic Sorcerer?

I agree with like 90% of your content on these forms, Aldarc, and respect ya; I really don't want to get into an argument with you over this, so I'll concede the point.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Hard evidence is objective proof. Not based on like or dislike.

You're not listening to what I'm asking. What kind of "hard evidence" do you want. Do I need data from polls? Do I need to survey every single D&D fan and show that most people hate metaplots? Do I need financial data from WotC that proves that metaplot eventually makes settings unprofitable?

I'm asking what you're looking for. What evidence do you need? What goose chase do you want to send me on?

As for toxicity of metaplots on communities. I've seen far less toxicity regarding metaplots than I have regarding alignment, hit points, race, edition, etc. If that's what you're using to say metaplots should go away, then we need to get rid of all the hot button mechanics that are also divisive.

I'd argue that the controversy around all of those topics proves that some works needs to be done. I'm also of the opinion that alignment is bad for the game and that the community would be better off without it.

 

[Parmandur]

But that's not compatibility. Publishing updated subclasses and/or providing conversion guidelines both mean the old material is incompatible by definition. That's still a good thing to do, mind, and I don't think I have any problem with it, but they're proposing that they'll provide updated versions of (guidelines to update) existing content, not that the existing stuff will still be usable as is.

Which, is I think good from a design perspective? It frees them up to do a lot more with subclasses and species abilities and all that.

Seems like semantic quibbling over what counts as "backwards compatible." If I can pick up SCAG, Xanathar's, Tasha's, or any of the 5E Settong books and use the material with the 2024 Core books...that's backwards compatible. Having a formula for compatibility does not mean the material isn't compatible.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Well, Level Up is explicitly designed to have more choices, so clearly that isn't the game for them. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Brevity is a virtue, but so is specificity. For my part, I don't want a simpler game. That's a big part of why I prefer Level Up, because they're not simplifying the fun out of 5e for me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Go is built to be simple to play. They didn't make a new edition of Go that cuts the game down to just what the highest polling choices are.

 

[Maxperson]

You're not listening to what I'm asking. What kind of "hard evidence" do you want. Do I need data from polls? Do I need to survey every single D&D fan and show that most people hate metaplots? Do I need financial data from WotC that proves that metaplot eventually makes settings unprofitable?

I'm not going to list every possible way to come up with hard evidence. I don't need you to go out and manufacture evidence.

You made the claim of objectivity, therefore should have hard evidence to support that claim. What is the hard evidence you are basing your claim of objectivity on?

What goose chase do you want to send me on?

I have no interest in sending you on a chase. You've said that you're using anecdotal experiences from Reddit which is your subjective experience based on what you have seen. The toxicity you saw was based on the subjective experiences of a number of posters. That evidence is not objective, it's subjective. Subjective + subjective =/= objective.

All I want to know is what objective evidence you used to come up with your claim. If it's none, that's okay. But no objective evidence means that your claim of objectivity in serious doubt.

I'd argue that the controversy around all of those topics proves that some works needs to be done. I'm also of the opinion that alignment is bad for the game and that the community would be better off without it.

And I'd argue that no matter what you do, people aren't going to like it and there will be a subset of those people who are toxic and will go online to spew it. Right now there are multiple millions of D&D players. A sliver of a sliver of multiple millions is still a huge number of people spewing toxicity, but that doesn't mean that anything needs to change or that what the toxic people are complaining about is bad.

It's similar to gun violence. You'd think from the news talking about mass shooting after mass shooting after mass shooting with assault rifles, that most gun deaths are caused by mass shootings using assault rifles. In fact, mass shooting deaths are dwarfed by the number of handgun deaths, but those don't get talked about. You see a lot of the former, so it misleads people into thinking that that assault rifles are the primary problem.

We can't base a conclusion off of the numbers of complainers and/or toxic people that we see online, because those numbers don't give us the bigger picture. It may be that most people or even a vast majority dislike metaplots. Or it may be that most people or a vast majority like them. We can't know with any objectivity from what we see online which it is, or even if it is a majority and not even.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'm not going to list every possible way to come up with hard evidence. I don't need you to go out and manufacture evidence.

So, nothing. You have absolutely nothing. Thanks so much for the help.

I never, ever asked you to list "every possible way to come up with hard evidence". I asked you for a single example. A lead for what you would want. What could convince you. Because I don't know how your brain works. I don't know what you will accept as evidence. I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase across the corners of the internet looking for evidence that you will inevitably dismiss. We've done this dance before in previous discussions. I've seen you do it with other people too.

So I'm not going to engage in your wild goose chase. Instead, if you want evidence, you have to tell me what you want. Give me one or two leads or things that I could feasibly track down or find even anecdotal evidence for. And if you're not going to do that, well, that just proves that you're not arguing in good faith, doesn't it?