D&D (2024) Jeremy Crawford Gives an Overview of the New Unearthed Arcana

The upcoming Unearthed Arcana playtest packet for One D&D gets a preview from WotC's Jeremy Crawford. This is apparently the largest of these playtest packets so far, and the biggest Unearthed Arcana they have ever done, at 50 pages long.

It contains 5 classes, new spells, new feats, a revised rules glossary, and the new weapon mastery system.

​

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

I wouldn't automatically assume a DM running a game I'm joining wants material from Tasha's being used anymore than I'd expect them to be willing to mix PHB classes from 2014/2024.

however I also would not expect that a new book putting out a subclass or magic item for 5e would need every DM to adjust it to make it work for a 2014 bard or 2014 warlock but that is what some suggest while keep saying it is compatible

 

[Velderan]

however I also would not expect that a new book putting out a subclass or magic item for 5e would need every DM to adjust it to make it work for a 2014 bard or 2014 warlock but that is what some suggest while keep saying it is compatible

Ideally they'll make the game easier to run instead of harder, agreed. They've claimed they'll have guidance where things don't 100% align, so we'll see. It sounds like their intent is to better support the DM in these books, but aside from saying they'll put some effort into making the DMG a more useful book, I'm not sure overall how much better they'll support the DM if "rulings not rules" is still the core design philosophy.

 

[Maxperson]

Nice to know it's impossible to have legitimate concerns when a game announces significant changes to an existing game line. Instead, it's all bad actors and "poisoning the well", and only those who are happy with what's happening are legit.

Yep. And have it implied that the side not being agreed with is engaging in edition wars, which isn't even possible here if people are right and it's all the same edition.

Also, since nobody is claiming 5e is better or worse than 5.5e, there's no edition war going on in any case.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I am not harping. This is the first time I brought this issue here because when I said we ran into several you wanted an example.
It is unfair to both ask for examples then when provided the examples claim the other poster is “harping” on it.

You asked for the example.

I think you and I must come from very different linguistic spheres, even if we both grew up speaking English (not to assume you did). Or we communicate very differently for some other reason, idk.

Point is, I didn’t say that. If I wanted to say that you were harping on a specific thing right now I wouldn’t allude to it. I’d just say that, and ask you to stop.

In fact, the specific statements I made can’t mean “you’re harping on this specific issue right now”. I literally referenced multiple people harping on “every potential issue”.

I promise, there are no hidden messages in my statements. They just mean what they say, barring a typo or other clerical error.


Asking you for an example of a specific thing is quite separate, and I directly responded to your examples.

If you don’t want to engage with my response, that’s fine, we can both just move on, but please take a moment to imagine multiple interpretations and consider not assuming the worst possible one, before slinging accusations.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Ideally they'll make the game easier to run instead of harder, agreed. They've claimed they'll have guidance where things don't 100% align, so we'll see. It sounds like their intent is to better support the DM in these books, but aside from saying they'll put some effort into making the DMG a more useful book, I'm not sure overall how much better they'll support the DM if "rulings not rules" is still the core design philosophy.

With Planescape coming out just before, maybe we can get the 25 pages the cosmology claims in the DMG back for DM stuff?

 

[Maxperson]

They can of course also say "no 2024" with the same degree of problem/non-problem.

It will be interesting to see if AL allows sticking with 5e or mixing 5e and 5.5e. If they restrict AL to 5.5e it will be very telling.

 

[Parmandur]

It will be interesting to see if AL allows sticking with 5e or mixing 5e and 5.5e. If they restrict AL to 5.5e it will be very telling.

The design team very specifically used the language of '14 material being "legal" in the '24 rules, so...I would wager that the AL will specifically allow older material.

 

[Maxperson]

The design team very specifically used the language of '14 material being "legal" in the '24 rules, so...I would wager that the AL will specifically allow older material.

I'm not doubting you, but I'd like to read what they said. Do you have a link to that article or video?

 

[Micah Sweet]

It will be interesting to see if AL allows sticking with 5e or mixing 5e and 5.5e. If they restrict AL to 5.5e it will be very telling.

I would be surprised if they don't. If anywhere, AL is the place where clarity is important.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

Ideally they'll make the game easier to run instead of harder, agreed.

agreed

They've claimed they'll have guidance where things don't 100% align, so we'll see. It sounds like their intent is to better support the DM in these books, but aside from saying they'll put some effort into making the DMG a more useful book, I'm not sure overall how much better they'll support the DM if "rulings not rules" is still the core design philosophy.

As I am looking now at the stuff they have put out so far they are both changing too much to have that advice be easy AND at the same time is not enough of a change to handle some of the issues I and my group have with the system of 5e.

that is why I (and I assume at least some of the others) talk through this (or try to) here the way we do, this isn't far enough in either direction to be useful to us. I keep hoping that talking about it will make them see ways to commit more one way or the other.