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.

​

 

[mamba]

nvm

 

[DEFCON 1]

Also, I see no reason why you would care given your approach (see above), so if your only real objection is ‘tradition, though’, then that is one I do not care for. ‘We have always / never done it that way’ is not a reason to keep doing it that way

You're right, I personally do not care. Whether 5E24 has SRs or LRs or both or neither, I'll use the rules that work for me and change the ones that don't.

My only point is that I don't see anything gained by moving away from the 5E14 rules for SRs/LRs in this regard. I happen to agree with WotC on this point. I know a lot of players were hoping for much larger changes to 5E24, but WotC does not appear to want to go that far and change up those things that aren't broken. And since SRs aren't broken for most tables, why remove them just to placate the few tables for whom they are?

 

[mamba]

I know a lot of players were hoping for much larger changes to 5E24, but WotC does not appear to want to go that far and change up those things that aren't broken. And since SRs aren't broken for most tables, why remove them just to placate the few tables for whom they are?

whether it is broken is in the eye of the beholder.

The rest goes back to what I wrote earlier, we have the SR and LR and what they recharge, but I don’t think that ever got 70% when it was introduced. I don’t think that could get 70% now if they wanted to bring it in.

So this is me objecting to the poll methodology. The fact that eliminating recharge on SR did not get 70% is not all that relevant to me when having it would not get 70% either. To me the 70% approval in this case is an obstacle to doing the ‘right’ thing, and we are stuck with the ‘wrong’ thing because we already have it when no one asked for it.

If neither approach gets 70% approval, then we should not need 70% to change the existing approach, it should be sufficient to be the more popular approach out of the two.

If the polls show that what we have now gets, say 60% and ‘my’ idea gets 40%, then stick to the current design.
But if my idea gets the 60% and the current design the 40%, then I see no reason to not change the design, just because the new one did not reach 70%.

So if the polling shows 70+% happy with what we have, then keep it, and I begrudgingly shut up about it.
I don’t think we would see that however. I think we are stuck with a less popular and inferior solution because of the 70% approval rule that the current rule never had to clear.

 

[OB1]

I'd imagine that Wizards has exceptional data on short rest usage through DDB, would be fascinating to see those statistics.

I really do like the 10 minute short rest proposal. It's long enough that in an enemy stronghold on alert it's not a guarantee, but short enough to make it reasonable. Very useful for ADs with 6-8 encounters, where a couple of those could come in rapid succession not allowing a rest. On days with 3 deadlies, I'm expecting a short rest after each encounter, only now I don't need to build in a reasonable way for them to rest an hour between each. May go ahead and implement this now.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'd imagine that Wizards has exceptional data on short rest usage through DDB, would be fascinating to see those statistics.

I really do like the 10 minute short rest proposal. It's long enough that in an enemy stronghold on alert it's not a guarantee, but short enough to make it reasonable. Very useful for ADs with 6-8 encounters, where a couple of those could come in rapid succession not allowing a rest. On days with 3 deadlies, I'm expecting a short rest after each encounter, only now I don't need to build in a reasonable way for them to rest an hour between each. May go ahead and implement this now.

"Enemy stronghold on alert"? That really doesn't even fit within the scope of all that many of the 5e HC adventurers alone.

Could we maybe stick to the needs of d&d rather than trying to design a buff for ammo restricted runners doing a dive on a target corp in shadowrun?

 

[Micah Sweet]

then I am not sure why you would object to getting rid of SRs, it sounds like it should not matter to you whether they exist


I gave my reasons, having everyone on the same recharge schedule, having more consequences from player decisions (if you want to / have to use all your resources in this battle you can, the Warlock can get more than two spells in if needed)

You might not consider them worthwhile, but that does not mean there aren’t any

I see no compatibility concern. Adventures do not really prescribe SRs anywhere, and the increase in resources for eg Warlocks accounts for the fact that they will get fewer SRs (ie only to heal).
If anything, it balances things better, because the number of SRs is not affecting char power levels any more.

Also, I see no reason why you would care given your approach (see above), so if your only real objection is ‘tradition, though’, then that is one I do not care for. ‘We have always / never done it that way’ is not a reason to keep doing it that way

It is if your marketing pushes backward compatibility as hard as WotC's has.

And having everyone on the same recharge schedule was a hallmark of 4e, and roundly rejected when 5e was designed. It would feel far less compatible than they want it to be if they changed that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Do people really track time that closely in their games? I get wanting short rests to be a thing, but, seriously? Most of the time don't games more or less progress at the speed of plot and if the players take a short rest when it's fairly logical, they just do it? Sure, if you're in that enemy stronghold being actively hunted, a short rest probably isn't in the cards. But, by the same token, if you're exploring some abandoned area, there's no time pressure and it's not really going to change anything, does anyone actually care if you take short rests?

I guess my question is, does it really matter that a short rest is exactly 60 minutes? Isn't that just mostly shorthand for "A bit of time passes when it seems fairly plausible that a bit of time can pass at this point"? Are people writing adventures with that much detail in them that an hour would actually make much of a difference?

I get wanting to make things clearer, but, realistically, IME, games progress at the speed of plot and short rests are taken when it's plausible. Same as long rests.

Do we actually need hard and fast rules here?

Oh it’s nothing to do with detail. It’s purely about the moment in which the choice is made, and whether it’s safe, etc

There’s a bg difference between how easy it is to have the safety for “okay we can take a quick breather” and “okay get lunch out and let’s hang out for an hour”.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don’t think we would see that however. I think we are stuck with a less popular and inferior solution because of the 70% approval rule that the current rule never had to clear

You really think that most players would prefer to only have long rests?

 

[tetrasodium]

It is if your marketing pushes backward compatibility as hard as WotC's has.

And having everyone on the same recharge schedule was a hallmark of 4e, and roundly rejected when 5e was designed. It would feel far less compatible than they want it to be if they changed that.

We still have everyone on the same recharge schedule though (long rest). Just now we have some classes they are extra equal with extra recharge options.

Even back in 2e and 3.x when strict RAW had different recharge needs it was less skewed than the long rest class vrs long rest or short rest class divergence because there were reasons to negotiate with the gm for how and when it made sense for partial or full recovery

 

[Remathilis]

Short Rests are pretty baked into the base game ... if this was 6e, discussing the need for them is a more fruitful discussion. Yeeting them out means new rules for spending hitdice and short rest abilities ... how does a Wizard use their Arcane Recovery feature now? And yes, it's doable, but I still like having the Short Rest as a thing to do in the game, I just find that the hour doesn't feel right.

The answer is that a short rest shouldn't be yeeted, it should be deemphasized.

Let me give you two examples of short rest mechanics done right: Arcane rest and the current channel divinity. Arcane rest allows a wizard to 1/day get 1/2 their class level in spell levels back. Is that a nice boon? Yes. If the wizard doesn't get a rest, is he crippled? No. Can he abuse it by spamming short rests? No. That is a good example of a short rest mechanic. The current channel divinity (and wild shape) also is good: they get 2-4 uses, and if they short rest they get a recharge. If they don't, they can still blow a spell slot to recharge it. But their primary resource (spells) are long rest, and if they don't get a short rest in that session, they also aren't crippled.

So the best way to do this is twofold: give every class a minor feature that can recharge on a short rest (or a major feature that can limitedly be recharged on a short rest) and adapt the rest to be at-will or long rest/per day. Give monks more ki points, but only give them a portion back on a short rest. Give warlock more spell slots, but then give them arcane recovery-like recharge (limited use and/or limited amount). Let sorcerers recover a few spell points or barbarians a use of rage. Make action surge like channel divinity. Give everyone a reason to short rest BUT don't cripple thier gameplay loop if they can't/don't.