D&D (2024) New One D&D Playtest Includes 5 Classes & New Weapon Mastery System

The latest playtest packet for One D&D has just landed, and features five classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard) and the new Weapon Mastery system.

In this new Unearthed Arcana document for the 2024 Core Rulebooks, we explore material designed for the next version of the Player’s Handbook. This playtest document presents the rules on the Weapon Mastery property, updates to weapons, new and revised spells, several new feats, and five classes: Barbarian, Fighter, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard. You will also find an updated rules glossary that supercedes the glossary of any previous playtest documents.

Claim Unearthed Arcana now! - D&D Beyond

www.dndbeyond.com

​

 

[Bacon Bits]

For simplicity and shortening EVERY ATTACK, maybe unarmed strike could be a weapon so it isn't typed OVER AND OVER?

Yeah, I've been silently screaming about the use of the word "attack" in 5e since 2014. It's clearly one of the designers' darlings that "weapon attack" needs to be a term and "attack" needs to be the name of the action and "attack" also needs to be the name of the die roll, and all of those need to be different things and it should be magically clear somehow what means what from context.

It's like 10 times more nuanced and complicated than it needs to be.

 

[billd91]

The equip/unequip is only part of the Attack action (capital 'A' since it's the name of an action). The Light property allows you to make one extra attack (small 'a'), not an extra Attack action. So the bonus action attack does not include the free equip/unequip no more than it includes the extra attacks granted by the Extra Attack class feature. As for the Thrown weapon property, I'd presume the same rule holds true that "specific overrides general" - the specific Thrown weapon properties override the general rule (or in this case, lack of a rule) of not equipping with a bonus action attack.

Capital A vs lower case a, huh? This is EXACTLY the kind of analytic reading that more explicit wording in the text of the rules should enable us to avoid. This isn't the Advanced Squad Leader rule book with differences between 'adjacent' and 'ADJACENT', nor should it be. A few extra words here and there to make the difference more obvious is a better use of their time.

 

[Charlaquin]

The Pact Magic progression already matched Ranger and Paladin. The Invocations (which they look to be leaning into as the mechanical identity for the Class) were always needed to make the Warlock a full caster.

I disagree with your analysis. Also I think it’s weird to read coming from you, the person who has consistently (and in my analysis, correctly) described the monk as the half-casting version of the warlock.

 

[Neonchameleon]

yup to play a full caster warlock the way I can right now it takes a 3rd level-9th level mystic arcunum so 7 of my invocations

That would be seven out of the nine invocations you get as a warlock (it used to be eight). And an eighth if you want Agonizing Blast (which admittedly the Book of Shadows doesn't need).

So yay! Two invocations total!

 

[Bacon Bits]

Believable world and 'cheats to force attrition then calls it realistic' are two different things.

If you think it's cheating that when you poke a goblin stronghold that the goblins organize a defense like intelligent creatures in potentially unfair ways, then I think you have such a fundamentally different understanding of what D&D is that further discussion is not really worthwhile.

 

[Charlaquin]

By this logic, you should never need to rest at all. After all, you'll just handle the monsters with your cantrips, right?

No, because you need rests to recover hit points. Moreover, long rests can only be taken once per 24 hours, and have much more opportunity for interruption than short rests do.

The idea that you should assume an ambush is going to be manageable is metagame thinking of the bad sort. You're making decisions thinking the game is going to act like a game. That's wrong for one because your character doesn't know that to be the case, and wrong for two because the DM doesn't have to do that at all.

I don’t believe metagaming thinking of any sort is bad, but moreover, I’ll reiterate that if the DM would rather TPK the group than allow the warlock to function as intended, it’s time to find a new DM.

 

[Zaukrie]

Why are invocations "forbidden" and not "ancient" or "rare" or other fiction? (I get this is largely irrelevant).

 

[Charlaquin]

yeah what;s up with class features now as bonus spells only that class knows but gets for free?

this is just more "Everything is a spell"

I don’t mind that, honestly, especially since Counterspell and Dispel Magic only work on spells. Making most magic into spells makes the rules governing magic more consistent, which isn’t a bad thing in my opinion.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

I think this is interesting, because it's probably the biggest change in presentation between older 5e and new 5e.

Basically, WotC seems to have come to believe the exact opposite. They've moved a bunch of abilities that used to be "class features" and now made them "class-specific spells". I think it is overall a good change, but I'm still going over the pros and cons.

The biggest con is it makes everything spells and magic and nothing innate knowladge.

My wizard isn't smart enough to keep spell formulas, he knows a spell that copies it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why are invocations "forbidden" and not "ancient" or "rare" or other fiction? (I get this is largely irrelevant).

I think that’s a reasonable way to reskin them, but the game does need some skin by default.