D&D (2024) New One D&D Playtest Shows Us The New Druid & Paladin

WotC has released the fourth One D&D playtest document. This 29-page PDF includes the druid and the paladin with Circle of the Moon and Oath of Devotion subclasses.

Druid. The Druid class and Circle of the Moon subclass are ready for playtesting here.

Paladin. The Paladin class and Oath of Devotion subclass are ready for playtesting here.

Feats. Several revised feats appear here for your feedback, with more revised feats coming in future articles.

Spells. More spells are ready for playtesting, with a focus on smite spells, Find Familiar, and Find Steed.

Rules Glossary. The rules glossary has been updated again and supersedes the glossary in previous Unearthed Arcana articles. In this document, any underlined term in the body text appears in that glossary, which defines game terms that have been clarified or redefined for this playtest or that don’t appear in the 2014 Player’s Handbook.

Claim Unearthed Arcana now! - D&D Beyond

www.dndbeyond.com

 

[Greg Benage]

That could be correct - I would have to go back and look at it, but I am trying to drop out of this thread to do some work. So maybe I will look again tonight.

The way it's written, you have a 25% chance of recalling a spell, regardless of spell level.

Free Casting. Whenever you cast a spell with a Spell Slot of 1st, 2nd, 3rd,or 4th level, roll a d4. If the number you roll equals the slot’s level, the slot isn’t expended.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Here's something I'm wondering, especially with how Epic Feats can now allow you to break the cap limit of 20 for your ability scores.
If you're not doing Xp for your games, how many does it take to gain an Epic Feat if you're playing with Milestone leveling rules?

I would assume when ever you would assigna level you assign a boon

 

[Mephista]

Noticed there is no level where all your beast attacks count as magical for purposes of resistances and immunities, other than the elemental attacks from the Moon Druid subclass?

To be absolutely fair, that might be something they're changing in 1D&D. In 5e, it was necessary, but perhaps that will change? Or maybe there will be something for those using their unarmed/natural weaponry, and you'll have magic claw weaponry?

 

[TwoSix]

Using this argument I could play a 2e druid...or a 4e warlord with the same amount of work at rearrangeing basics... maybe slight

If you can't see the fact that a 2e or 4e warlord has wildly different "outputs", then I'm not quite sure how to explain it to you. Saves work completely differently. Attacks scale on a completely different baseline. The damage expressions and scaling aren't the same. You can't ask a 2e druid or a 3e druid for skill checks because the entire model is different.

I don't think they need to be exact, but they system needs to be... like you could almsot make one druid and one shaman... but the status effects and feats and spell details (heck just actions) are so different.

And again, I just don't see how that's a problem. I think there's some fundamental assumptions we have about the game that is causing us to be unable to communicate clearly about this issue.

 

[Loren the GM]

sorry but no. You can't really play 2024 characters with the same class/race as the 2014 characters (atleast no more or less then you could run a 2nd 3rd or 4th edition character next to one)
the change to base rules (status, and spells) the change to where you get what... you have to update a character from 1 book to the other to play at most tables

At least in the playtest so far, there is no problem using 2014 characters alongside the new characters and rules. What tables and DMs rule/allow doesn't really impact the compatibility of what is being offered.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Yeah, I'm perfectly happy with fixed stat blocks for Druids and summons. I hate when new monster books become new PC abilities. It just becomes "find the optimal damage per CR and then smash that button." Like that's not a deep or compelling strategy or tactic. Especially when its, "stop the game and find something buried in the Monster Manual that has the random ability I need." It discourages picking forms that fit your character and encourages picking the rarest, least realistic creature in the book.

However, I hate that Wild Shape is still siloed into a de facto combat-only ability. When the Wizard gets Alter Self a 3rd (2nd), Water Breathing at 5th (3rd), Fly at 5th (3rrd), and Polymorph at 7th (4th), it's really aggravating that Druid can't do better than that with it's defining class feature that's supposed to let you do exactly that.

I want wild shape give us a travel form (climb, swim, fly, or move quickly), a combat form, a stealthy/scent form, and (for Moon Druid) an elemental form. Make the travel and stealthy forms not suitable for combat. You turn into a squirrel or mole or spider or codfish or sparrow. Scale each form by level, and give them to the Druid at or before the level the Cleric and Wizard get the spells that do the same thing.

The level 7 ability and level 9 ability shouldn't be when you get aquatic and flight. At best it's when the combat forms can get aquatic and flight. And even then they should probably be lower, because Alter Self and Water Breathing and Polymorph still exist!

The resources spent on wild shape are less than using a 3rd level spell slot to fly. It comes back on a short rest and you get a good handful of uses. They are intentionally limiting its power, which is a good thing, because magic shouldn't be the default answer to everything. The druid shouldn't get an ability to approach being on par with a warrior in combat, close to a rogue in infiltration, AND equal to the ranger in scouting ON TOP OF 9 level spellcasting.

I think a better compromise would be adding specific animal form spells that consume a use of wild shape.

 

[Minigiant]

Ranged Smite doesn't work for me, brother.

 

[Loren the GM]

1) Probably the newer one, because I kinda hate the old one. For most spells, I'll probably just let them pick.

2) Why would any 2 people have exactly the same abilities? The nature spirits/deities/whatever their source of power gave them different blessings, that's all. The idea that 2 characters, in the fiction, would expect to gain the exact same supernatural blessings over time just wildly strains credulity.

Exactly. This is player facing stuff, not DM stuff mostly. It is like picking different classes or subclasses. Why do I care if they play monk, artificer, 2014 druid, or 2024 druid, and use the abilities that go along with whichever they pick? If there is a spell question between the two editions, just let the player pick, or take a moment to read through as the DM and choose one. Or maybe the book will have guidance for players or DMs to make that question even easier.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And again, I just don't see how that's a problem. I think there's some fundamental assumptions we have about the game that is causing us to be unable to communicate clearly about this issue.

okay agree to disagree... I see a aproblem

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Exactly. This is player facing stuff, not DM stuff mostly. It is like picking different classes or subclasses. Why do I care if they play monk, artificer, 2014 druid, or 2024 druid,

except two spells that have the same name work diffrent, some conditions only apply to one not the other... how the feats work alone.

Last time my example was a dwarven bard that need so many adjustments it might as well just be making the character over