D&D (2024) New One D&D Playtest Document: 77 Pages, 7 Classes, & More!

There's a brand new playtest document for the new (version/edition/update) of Dungeons of Dragons available for download! This one is an enormous 77 pages and includes classes, spells, feats, and weapons.

Unearthed Arcana Playtest

Unearthed Arcana Playtest Materials Get Unearthed Arcana playtest content, try it out in your game, and provide feedback! Check back regularly for ...

www.dndbeyond.com

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 updated rules on seven classes: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue. This document also presents multiple subclasses for each of those classes, new Spells, revisions to existing Spells and Spell Lists, and several revised Feats. You will also find an updated rules glossary that supercedes the glossary of any previous playtest document.

​

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well, hopefully not. More bang for the buck. Bit as long as compatibility is maintained, that's gravy.

Sure, and you know what, it is more bang for the buck.

I'm just really tired of people trying to make out changes aren't changes, or bizarrely minimizing them. It's actually weirdly insulting to the 5E/1D&D designers, who are doing an impressive job of making some pretty big changes yet keeping things fundamentally compatible.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Feats, Classes, Species and Backgrpund options are not core rules. The Rules Glossary in Packet 6 contains everything that WotC is still considering for the core rules of the game, as wx0licitly stated in the packet.

I can’t check right now. Does it say that, or does it say to only use what is in the current document + existing printed rules?

Bc those are different statements.

 

[Parmandur]

Who are you even arguing with here? It's like you think people are saying 1D&D is "not compatible".

No-one is saying that.

Pointing out changes doesn't mean it's "not compatible".

I'm not even arguing, I'm havering. I only just had my coffee, apologies if that is coming across as argumentative.

My poaition: this is a new Edition, arguably 9th or 21st edition D&D. The name doesn't matter. There are rule changes, but nothing that breaks compatibility, which is the only thing I really care about. Exceptions based design.

 

[Parmandur]

I can’t check right now. Does it say that, or does it say to only use what is in the current document + existing printed rules?

Bc those are different statements.

It says anything dropped from the Rules Glossary "isn't moving forward."

 

[Parmandur]

Sure, and you know what, it is more bang for the buck.

I'm just really tired of people trying to make out changes aren't changes, or bizarrely minimizing them. It's actually weirdly insulting to the 5E/1D&D designers, who are doing an impressive job of making some pretty big changes yet keeping things fundamentally compatible.

I don't think we actually disagree on anything here.

 

[tetrasodium]

Nope, lol.

They're non-optional. Before you could only take Feats if the DM allowed it. That is no longer the case.

He's not wrong about it being "just a feat now too" though.

4TH LEVEL: ABILITY SCORE IMPROVEMENT
You gain the Ability Score Improvement feat or another feat of your choice for which you qualify.
ABILITY SCORE IMPROVEMENT
Prerequisite: 4th+ Level
You increase one ability score of your choice by 2, or you increase two ability scores of your choice by 1. You can’t increase an ability score above 20 using this feat. However, if you are at least 19th level, that maximum increases to 22. Repeatable. You can take this feat more than once.

 

[mamba]

It's legitimately a change, but in terms of game math basically basically meaningless. A 2014 PC can just roll in and take a 1st Level Feat, per Crawford, and just go. Heck, many 2014 PCs already have Level 1 Feats, since Theros in 2020.

it is a change in wording, not in effect. Before ASI were their own thing and feats were optional, now feats are mandatory, but outside the one from your background, you can limit the game to having ASI as the only available feat.

So you still have ASIs and optional feats, technically

 

[mamba]

Nope, lol.

They're non-optional. Before you could only take Feats if the DM allowed it. That is no longer the case.

apart from the one from your background they are still optional. The DM can allow ASI as the only feat, just like he could restrict feats before, leaving you with ASI only.

In practice nothing changed, the wording is different however

 

[MockingBird]

apart from the one from your background they are still optional. The DM can allow ASI as the only feat, just like he could restrict feats before, leaving you with ASI only.

In practice nothing changed, the wording is different however

Yep, this is why I wasn't to worried about it. It's technically the same as it has been.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I thought it was said if a rule didn't show up in the glossary then you revert back to the 2014 rule? I could be wrong though.

For the Purpose of Playtesting, yes.

But that doesn't tell us anything about what the 2024 books will settle on, in the end.