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]

And it is complete coincidence that you argue for things you happen to like?

Have you seen every time that I've argued that something should be included in the game? Because I often do argue that things that I'm not a fan of be included. Because I think that the health of the game is more important than my own personal desires.

 

[Hussar]

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.

You're absolutely right. The 2014 books haven't been in print in years. They were abandoned for newer printings at least once in 2018. Probably multiple times. Anyone who started 5e play after 2015 has probably never even seen a 2014 version of the rules.

 

[Hussar]

Its not as big a change as 3.5e to 4e, or 4e to 5e, but its at least as big as 1e to 2e, and to my mind 3e to 3.5e. I think it's a mistake for WotC to insist that it isn't an edition change when they clearly want you to re-buy the core books. The more people understand that, the better.

Ok, you're not even trying here anymore.

Are they removing entire classes? Are they rewriting entire classes from the ground up? No? Then it's not "at least as big as 1e to 2e". Good grief. 1e and 2e are barely compatible and you most certainly could never play a 1e class and a 2e version of the same class at the same table and expect it to work out of the box.

THIS is what people are pushing against when people start blathering on about "new edition". The ludicrous hyperbole and what looks like very deliberate misinterpretation and misleading presentation of facts.

 

[Greg Benage]

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

Only if they're really chill players who don't care about "balance," I think. I'm not that chill. If I think we're playing 1D&D and make a Lore Bard and you bring in a 5e Lore Bard, I'm going to be slightly miffed.

 

[Cadence]

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.

Is this the entire PHB errata https://media.wizards.com/2021/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf on five pages?

It feels like whether they are printing the errata for the 2024 printing going all the way back, and if so how long it is relevant? At some point with enough errata doesn't it become no longer compatibile in a practical sense? (I have no idea how long that is).

Hm. When did they get rid of trap the soul?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Technically, yes, although obvious in much smaller ways than the 2024 books look to be, judging by what we've seen so far.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

Not when the last 20 years of D&D history that the definition of an entirely new edition has shifted. That's a part of D&D history. It's how WotC have always defined a new edition. Why does the definition from the first two decades overrule the definition from the last two?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Have you seen every time that I've argued that something should be included in the game? Because I often do argue that things that I'm not a fan of be included. Because I think that the health of the game is more important than my own personal desires.

And I'll argue for things I outright dislike and never want to play. A champion fighter, for example, would bore me rigid - but I think that either a champion fighter or simple barbarian should be there because not everyone is me. And if it's there it should be mechanically powerful enough to be reasonably balanced (the way the current Champion isn't).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not when the last 20 years of D&D history that the definition of an entirely new edition has shifted. That's a part of D&D history. It's how WotC have always defined a new edition. Why does the definition from the first two decades overrule the definition from the last two?

It has clearly gone back and forth. It could be argued that 3.0 and 3.5 were "backwards compatible". I won't argue it, but I think 2024 will be a new edition too, so what do I know?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

And I'll argue for things I outright dislike and never want to play. A champion fighter, for example, would bore me rigid - but I think that either a champion fighter or simple barbarian should be there because not everyone is me. And if it's there it should be mechanically powerful enough to be reasonably balanced (the way the current Champion isn't).

Yeah, exactly. I'm not a fan of Rangers, but I'll never argue against their inclusion in the rulebooks. I've let my players play Rangers, and I don't punish them for picking a class that I'm not a fan of. The health and fun of the game is more important than my petty preferences.

So I argue in favor of things being included that are just a matter of taste. If they can actually reduce the playability of the game or fun at the table, and I think the problems are common enough to warrant change, I do argue that they should be changed. I do think objectively good game design exists, especially when you're trying to appeal to the most people possible.