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

​

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Its going to be interesting when the next few months roll around and the indecisive and vague feedback people are going to give on the survey end up negatively impacting the game...again.

"It's great that you're making concrete how to develop (most) new spells, but not putting a level adjustment on many of those changes has the potential to really upset level balance" is pretty concrete.

I can only be responsible for my own feedback.

 

[Yaarel]

Even if wizards only made custom silent and still versions of all their spells, that's an enormous power upgrade.

Psionics is normal in my games, namely spells without spell components. And the innate magic elsewhere, such as that prevalent in the Fey setting also lacks spell components. I have never had a problem.

Oppositely, I find the spell components that get listed in each spell to be unnecessary, superfluous, clumsy, and disruptive to various flavors of spellcasters.

I would rather every spell in 2024 delete reference to spell components.

Instead, each class (and sometimes subclass) has its own method to cast spells.

I want to see ...

Bards only use a Verbal component for every spell. Except a certain subclass might use Somatic gestures via "dance" instead. An other subclass uses a musical instrument as as Material Focus, instead.

Druids only use Material components, typically herbal potions.

Clerics use Verbal prayers along with any visual linguistic Symbol as a Material Focus.

Sorcerers only use Somatic gestures, to wield the magic of their own bodies.

And so on.

The spell itself should have nothing to do with spell components. It is the flavor of the class that should define how a character casts spells.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Psionics is normal in my games, namely spells without spell components. And the innate magic elsewhere, such as that prevalent in the Fey setting also lacks spell components. I have never had a problem.

Oppositely, I find the spell components that get listed in each spell to be unnecessary, superfluous, clumsy, and disruptive to various flavors of spellcasters.

I would rather every spell in 2024 delete reference to spell components.

Instead, each class (and sometimes subclass) has its own method to cast spells.

I want to see ...

Bards only use a Verbal component for every spell. Except a certain subclass might use Somatic gestures via "dance" instead. An other subclass uses a musical instrument as as Material Focus, instead.

Druids only use Material components, typically herbal potions.

Clerics use Verbal prayers along with any visual linguistic Symbol as a Material Focus.

Sorcerers only use Somatic gestures, to wield the magic of their own bodies.

And so on.

The spell itself should have nothing to do with spell components. It is the flavor of the class that should define how a character casts spells.

Did you misread my post?

I was talking about silent and still spells, not getting rid of spell components.

Getting rid of spell components should not affect the spell's level, I agree.

 

[Yaarel]

Getting rid of spell components should not affect the spell's level, I agree.

Yeah.

Did you misread my post?

I was talking about silent and still spells, not getting rid of spell components.

Silent means deleting the Verbal spell component.

Still means deleting the Somatic spell component.

I was pointing out it would be better for the game if these components were never there in the spells in first place.

It is best when the flavor of each class has its own method, its own components, to cast any spell.

The spell description should be neutral. Each class should be able to cast it in a different way that is appropriate to the class.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Silent means deleting the Verbal spell component.

Still means deleting the Somatic spell component.

I was pointing out it would be better if these components were never there in the spells in first place.

That's a pretty major change to make wholesale to the game, especially in what is meant as a tweak to 5E, not a wholesale reimagining of it, as a Silence spell is one of the main ways to lock down spellcasters. It's not the kind of change that one player at the table should be able to make for everyone else.

Even outside of combat, the enchanter and illusionist being able to cast spells without anyone knowing it was them is a big power up for them.

And silent and still were just two of the examples given. The new wizard spells also allow evokers to create fireballs that will never hurt their allies, which is great news for the evokers, but is making what's already a too-good spell (by WotC's repeated admission) crazy good.

 

[Yaarel]

That's a pretty major change to make wholesale to the game, especially in what is meant as a tweak to 5E, not a wholesale reimagining of it, as a Silence spell is one of the main ways to lock down spellcasters. It's not the kind of change that one player at the table should be able to make for everyone else.

Getting rid of the spell components item in the spell description is inconsequential.

Each spellcasting class already has a section that describes how the class casts spells. The methods and component requirements belong there, not in the spell description.

Even outside of combat, the enchanter and illusionist being able to cast spells without anyone knowing it was them is a big power up for them.

The nature of Illusion requires stealth in order for the a deceptive use of a spell to be effective. I dont have a problem with this.

And silent and still were just two of the examples given. The new wizard spells also allow evokers to create fireballs that will never hurt their allies, which is great news for the evokers, but is making what's already a too-good spell (by WotC's repeated admission) crazy good.

I care about balance, and "sculpting spells" is a separate issue. Part of the flavor of certain spells, is that they are dangerous to cast, such as the raw explosion of a Fireball. Whether this is part of gaming balance depends on each spell, on a case by case basis.

But the spell components item in each spell has zero to do with gaming balance and interferes with class flavor.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I care about balance, and "sculpting spells" is a separate issue. Part of the flavor of certain spells, is that they are dangerous to cast, such as the raw explosion of a Fireball. Whether this is part of gaming balance depends on each spell, on a case by case basis.

Right, so my point was, and remains, that certain of these upgrades need to have a level adjustment. Fireball not hurting allies is a prime example.

(And "allies" needs to be defined. Does your entire army of 10,000 soldiers count? Could I fly over a Game of Thrones-style melee with 20,000 people all thoroughly mixed together, cast a Fireball, and only hit the enemy?)

 

[Yaarel]

Right, so my point was, and remains, that certain of these upgrades need to have a level adjustment. Fireball not hurting allies is a prime example.

Yeah. Some mechanics affect the balance. For example, Fireball swaps out the precision of targeting for extra damage.

(And "allies" needs to be defined. Does your entire army of 10,000 soldiers count? Could I fly over a Game of Thrones-style melee with 20,000 people all thoroughly mixed together, cast a Fireball, and only hit the enemy?)

An "ally" is subjective. Defacto, it means anyone, whoever the player chooses to assist or tries to avoid injuring.

If there is a crowd of 10,000 soldiers who are "allies"/"friends", and only one "foe"/"hostile" among them, then indeed that is what these terms mean.

 

[Parmandur]

OK, but that just delays the balancing issues, instead of fully addressing them.

Even if wizards only made custom silent and still versions of all their spells, that's an enormous power upgrade.

While cool, even if a Level 20 Wizard spent a lot of time and money on maxing out their whole Spellbook, none of the adjustments in question actually have an impact on Spell Level based on the DMG guidelines.

As such, this seems more like a table issue, similar to magic item access: how many Aecane Foci worth thousands of Gold pieces ca the Wizard find? As many as the DM allows.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

While cool, even if a Level 20 Wizard spent a lot of time and money on maxing out their whole Spellbook, none of the adjustments in question actually have an impact on Spell Level based on the DMG guidelines.

The 2014 DMG guidelines are, to put it politely, hot garbage.

If you don't think a Fireball only hitting enemies, not friends, shouldn't affect spell level, make it a house rule that the spell works that way in your game today. Even better, give out some Wands of Fireball.

As an illusionist player, I will be thrilled if the new spell creation rules go in as-is.

As a DM, I will definitely be putting in some stop gaps in the system.