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.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Yes. But you are not the majority.

With the explosive growth of the game in the past near decade, I'm not sure the majority of players have any memory of prior editions.

 

[Greg Benage]

The Feat changes are more of a wash than a nerf: their damage was lowered, but they took away the hit malus, so the DPR is about the same but without being a power gaming lightning rod.

They're not a wash at all IMO. GWM loses -5/+10 in favor of +PB damage once per turn. SS loses -5/+10 and gets no damage raiser. XBE loses bonus action attack. Ranger loses their situational extra attack features. No spiritual weapon + spirit guardians. No off-turn sneak attacks. No Steady Aim. It may be that new warrior features completely offset these nerfs, but that doesn't seem very likely based on what they've done with the rogue class.

If we actually playtested these rules and optimized characters with what we have today, DPR would be considerably lower than the 5e meta (kinda hate that term, but there you go). I hope that's a conscious design intention, but obviously it's a long way to 2024.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

With the explosive growth of the game in the past near decade, I'm not sure the majority of players have any memory of prior editions.

Do why insisting of using that concept?

 

[Cadence]

I'm not amused but amazed that WotC can introduce 1e by specifically, emphatically rejecting the old "editions" model as flawed, explain their reasons at length, lay out the new parameters of what they want to do...only to have so many folks simply stuff their fingers in their ears and declare "can't be done. The old "editions" model is the only one possible." The power of paradigmatic thinking is truly impressive.

There are lots of new models they could do that would work for me.

One computer package I use puts in a new number up front for big changes and little ones for small incremental things. I'm usually not even sure what version it is until the big changes unless a package warns me to update. Apparently I have 4.1.1 installed write now and the most recent one is 4.2.2. I think one of the flavors of Minecraft does the same.

So 5e-2024? 5e1.01? 5.5? Whatever. The only problem I'll have is if they keep letting Amazon sell it with the note "The essential rulebook for Dungeons & Dragons (5th edition)" and the changes are big enough that someone buying a previous one labeled that same way will be greatly disappointed that they don't have the rules in the new one, and that it isn't fixable by a few pages of errata.

-----

I guess a pair of questions I have about editions and D&D is:

If WotC had just kept calling the new 3.5 printings 3rd edition, would that have been problematic? (Would folks have been shocked if they showed up at a table with one and it was the other?)

If TSR had called the later printing of 2e with a new cover 3e, would that have been problematic? (Would folks be disappointed buying the book and expecting changes, only to not get them?)

 

[Micah Sweet]

There are lots of new models they could do that would work for me.

One computer package I use puts in a new number up front for big changes and little ones for small incremental things. I'm usually not even sure what version it is until the big changes unless a package warns me to update. Apparently I have 4.1.1 installed write now and the most recent one is 4.2.2. I think one of the flavors of Minecraft does the same.

So 5e-2024? 5e1.01? 5.5? Whatever. The only problem I'll have is if they keep letting Amazon sell it with the note "The essential rulebook for Dungeons & Dragons (5th edition)" and the changes are big enough that someone buying a previous one labeled that same way will be greatly disappointed that they don't have the rules in the new one, and that it isn't fixable by a few pages of errata.

View attachment 268937

-----

I guess a pair of questions I have about editions and D&D is:

If WotC had just kept calling the new 3.5 printings 3rd edition, would that have been problematic? (Would folks have been shocked if they showed up at a table with one and it was the other?)

If TSR had called the later printing of 2e with a new cover 3e, would that have been problematic? (Would folks be disappointed buying the book and expecting changes, only to not get them?)

This is not a new printing of the 2014 books. Pretending it is will just lead to disappointment and anger from people who think all "5e" core books are equivalent.

 

[Clint_L]

So 5e-2024? 5e1.01? 5.5? Whatever. The only problem I'll have is if they keep letting Amazon sell it with the note "The essential rulebook for Dungeons & Dragons (5th edition)" and the changes are big enough that someone buying a previous one labeled that same way will be greatly disappointed that they don't have the rules in the new one, and that it isn't fixable by a few pages of errata.

Then you're in luck, because they are removing the word "edition" entirely and just labeling it "D&D." That's the whole premise of OneD&D. That's the first thing they tell us in the announcement video.

 

[glass]

Then you're in luck, because they are removing the word "edition" entirely and just labeling it "D&D."

WotC pretending it is not a new edition does not make it not one.

 

[Remathilis]

I wonder how many people are confused by Microsoft Windows numbering? I mean, I'm not. You losers are stuck on Windows 11, but I'm on Windows 98! That 87 editions later!

 

[Cadence]

The n you're in luck, because they are removing the word "edition" entirely and just labeling it "D&D." That's the whole premise of OneD&D.

My point wasn't about whether edition is used. It is about me thinking it's bad to sell a product that is substantially different [Edit: in terms of rules] in the eyes of most purchasers without being upfront about it. If after a decade the accumulated changes in the "D&D Players Handbook" printed in 2024 and 2034 are so different that people really care about which one they got, but WotC buries that there is a difference then that would feel dishonest to me. If they're referred to as the 2014 PHB, 2024 PHB, and 2035 PHB... that's fine. There are lots of ways to do it. Does software usually use "version"? I'm not sure why the one side cares so much its called a new edition, and the other side desperately doesn't want it called that - apparently "edition" has more power than I thought it did.

 

[Cadence]

Then you're in luck, because they are removing the word "edition" entirely and just labeling it "D&D." That's the whole premise of OneD&D. That's the first thing they tell us in the announcement video.

Or, to follow up. How do they reword the top two sentences of the following if the newer resource is also called "Player's Handbook" to differentiate it from the 2024 Player's Handbook. Or will they produce a set of errata containing all of the accumulated changes since 2014 (like they have now) for the PHB?