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.

 

[Faolyn]

Hmm. So you could take 1D&D stuff and use in a 5e campaign. Yeah, from what we've seen, that's probably true, but I think whatever you use would have to replace (not supplement) the 5e counterpart. It's not at all like Tasha's in that respect. You're not going to be able to let players mix and match this stuff.

Is that a real problem, though? You can just tell players that if they want to use a class or race from the 5e books, then they can only use archetypes from 5e, and if they want to use a class or species from One, then they can only use archetypes from One. And then you, as DM, just have to decide which version of a feat, spell, magic item, monster you're going to use based on your preferences, and you can decide those if and when they come up.

 

[glass]

Sure, but that is not a profound insight, nor evidence of a conspiracy. They are updating a game that will be 10 years old. As game designers they want to improve the game. As business people they hope lots of people will buy the new books.

Nobody said it was a "conspiracy". All anyone is saying AFAICT is that it is a new edition, and WotC's saying it isn't does not actually change anything (they said the same about 3.5 at times, and it wasn't true then either).

I think the big issue is that the last three editions of D&D were majorly different from the one before it.

3.0 => 3.5 was one of the last three, and that was one of the less drastic ones. Conversely, OD&D => AD&D and OD&D => Basic were each fairly drastic in their own ways. Edition changes that were of different scales, thereby giving rise to edition families, have been a thing for almost as long as there have been edition changes.

 

[Umbran]

I don't consider my opinions less valid because they're not shared by the majority.

That's fine. But I don't see when you were born, nor how many edition changes you see, matters to that. Your opinions are not more valid for being born in 1976, for example.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, how do you think they'll have Adventurer's League run? Will they say a PHB (using latest errata in the usual errata link) or will they not have a comprehensive 2014->2024 errata document and just say PHB 2024 printing?

Excellent question. AL will make them choose a side.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's fine. But I don't see when you were born, nor how many edition changes you see, matters to that. Your opinions are not more valid for being born in 1976, for example.

Sure. But we were discussing new players who might not have seen an edition change before. Having some history with the process can be helpful.

 

[Greg Benage]

Is that a real problem, though? You can just tell players that if they want to use a class or race from the 5e books, then they can only use archetypes from 5e, and if they want to use a class or species from One, then they can only use archetypes from One. And then you, as DM, just have to decide which version of a feat, spell, magic item, monster you're going to use based on your preferences, and you can decide those if and when they come up.

Nah, I don't think you're going to be able to mix and match classes, based on what we've seen. And no, that's not a problem for me.

I'm playing almost exclusively on Roll20* these days, so from a practical perspective, I'm either going to run 5e or 1D&D. Other VTTs may be different, but Roll20 pretty much makes you pick a rule set, unless I want to do a bunch of manual work that I pay good money not to do. I'm hopeful I'll go with 1D&D, but I'm buying it either way. It's the 50th Anniversary!

* Assuming D&D on Roll20 is still a thing in 2024.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

What they've done would appear to be lower the skill gap. They've cut down the difference between a rogue played between a savvy but non-expert player and an expert one by taking away the off-turn sneak attack. They've lowered the difference between a fighter played by a naive player and one played by someone with high system mastery by weakening the power attack feats. And they've lowered the gap between an average cleric and one played by someone with high system mastery by nerfing the one skill that combos with everything.

 

[Hussar]

The 2024 corebooks are intended to replace the 2014 corebooks. They never never the core three would be backwards compatible, just adventures and supplements (and supplement compatibility won't be perfect either).

Ok, let's be clear here.

There have been at LEAST 12 print runs of the 5e PHB and some of those are different from the 2014 print because they include errata.

Does that mean that your 2014 PHB is no longer compatible? After all, these print runs replace the 2014 core books.

 

[Greg Benage]

What they've done would appear to be lower the skill gap.

That sounds right today. Of course, new skill gaps and space for system mastery will be introduced. They always are. But if the new meta is, like, charging with javelins or something instead of hand crossbows, I'll take it.

 

[Faolyn]

Nah, I don't think you're going to be able to mix and match classes, based on what we've seen. And no, that's not a problem for me.

I'm playing almost exclusively on Roll20* these days, so from a practical perspective, I'm either going to run 5e or 1D&D. Other VTTs may be different, but Roll20 pretty much makes you pick a rule set, unless I want to do a bunch of manual work that I pay good money not to do. I'm hopeful I'll go with 1D&D, but I'm buying it either way. It's the 50th Anniversary!

* Assuming D&D on Roll20 is still a thing in 2024.

Well, I meant, one person plays 5e fighter and another person plays One cleric. I think that could likely work too well. It might even work having one person play a 5e fighter and another person playing a One fighter, depending on the types of players and the archetypes involved--I doubt that there will be versions of every single 5e archetype, and if someone wants to play, I dunno, a psi knight, they may not be able to do so easily with the One version of the fighter.

And, of course, not everyone plays via Roll20. I know a whole lot of people do and that it may be impossible to mix 5e and One characters--I have no idea how any VTT works, actually. For people who play via discord (like me) or zoom or whatever, or who play in person, though, it won't be so hard.