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.

​

 

[Parmandur]

I’m not sure how that’s relevant. That some people have no idea how any given system works tells us nothing about any given system.

Just that I have had the experience of trying to explain to a casual player, who had played both 4E and 5E, how they were different from each other.

 

[Parmandur]

Given that most current D&D players started with 5e, they don't know any better. If they've only had lunch meat for 10 years, they aren't going to want the steak that they don't know about, but would likely love if they actually got it.

That assumes that people would prefer that. Someone with shellfish allergies is not going to prefer lobster to chicken nuggets.

There are always going to be things that players complain about. Changing the game is only going to be switching up these pain points and frustrations. Minor things like this aren't what I would call a game frustration. Balancing the game around the adventuring day, though, would be one. Balancing the game around resource attrition would be another. Those aren't changing, so they aren't actually doing anything about the real frustration points.

There are no "real" frustration points as in objective problems: only what bothers most players. If most players like the Advebturing Day, for instance, then it is not a real fruatration for WotC purposes.

 

[Maxperson]

That assumes that people would prefer that. Someone with shellfish allergies is not going to prefer lobster to chicken nuggets.

Sure. Some very tiny percentage of people might have shellfish allergies. I think for the great majority of new players to D&D, if they experienced a greater crunch release rate they would be happier.

And just because so many people like to misstate my position, I'm not suggesting 3e/4e rates of release. There's a ton of middle ground in-between the glacial 5e rate and the lightning fast 3e/4e rates.

There are no "real" frustration points as in objective problems: only what bothers most players. If most players like the Advebturing Day, for instance, then it is not a real fruatration for WotC purposes.

I'm struggling to think of a single person in the last 10 years on this forum who has embraced and likes the adventuring day. It is nearly universally disliked and/or ignored.

 

[Parmandur]

Sure. Some very tiny percentage of people might have shellfish allergies. I think for the great majority of new players to D&D, if they experienced a greater crunch release rate they would be happier.

And just because so many people like to misstate my position, I'm not suggesting 3e/4e rates of release. There's a ton of middle ground in-between the glacial 5e rate and the lightning fast 3e/4e rates.

What evidence points to anything other than 5E following the middle ground already...? Hell, we've seen a significant uptick in the release tempo in the past decade, from 3 hardcovers a year to 5.

I'm struggling to think of a single person in the last 10 years on this forum who has embraced and likes the adventuring day. It is nearly universally disliked and/or ignored.

I can think of several, but I wouldn't assume that posters on this forum are representing of the user base. Quite the opposite.

 

[Maxperson]

What evidence points to anything other than 5E following the middle ground already...?

The facts. I mean, we have 3 editions of WotC D&D. Two with insanely high release rates and one(5e) that is glacially slow in comparison. By definition it's impossible the the most restrictive edition of WotC D&D to be the middle ground between itself and 4e/5e.

5e is objectively not following the middle ground between itself and the two prior editions. It can't.

Hell, we've seen a significant uptick in the release tempo in the past decade, from 3 hardcovers a year to 5.

Are you deliberately twisting what I've been saying from crunch to hardcovers? Adventures and settings are not crunch books(even though they have a small amount of it). Tashas is. Xanathar's is. The giant book will be. Even then those books have a very small amount of it in comparison to books from 3e. Despite similar page counts, I got a lot more crunch from say the PHB II from 3e than I did from Tasha's.

I can think of several, but I wouldn't assume that posters on this forum are representing of the user base. Quite the opposite.

And I can think of several dozen that don't like it.

The argument that "Even though the vast majority of people we know about dislike the adventuring day, it's a possibility that the players at large do like it." is very weak. I mean, "Even though we know that the vast majority of billionaires on earth are greedy, on some other planet somewhere in the universe there might be very generous billionaires." is the same argument.

 

[Parmandur]

The facts. I mean, we have 3 editions of WotC D&D. Two with insanely high release rates and one(5e) that is glacially slow in comparison. By definition it's impossible the the most restrictive edition sure. If there was a tC D&D to be the middle ground between itself and 4e/5e.

5e is objectively not following the middle ground between itself and the two prior editions. It can't.

The goal of the release rate is to sell as many books as possible. Between 2012 and 2014 the release rate was even slower.

Are you deliberately twisting what I've been saying from crunch to hardcovers? Adventures and settings are not crunch books(even though they have a small amount of it). Tashas is. Xanathar's is. The giant book will be. Even then those books have a very small amount of it in comparison to books from 3e. Despite similar page counts, I got a lot more crunch from say the PHB II from 3e than I did from Tasha's.

Books which are used to play the game are game books, doesn't much matter.

And I can think of several dozen that don't like it.

The argument that "Even though the vast majority of people we know about dislike the adventuring day, it's a possibility that the players at large do like it." is very weak. I mean, "Even though we know that the vast majority of billionaires on earth are greedy, on some other planet somewhere in the universe there might be very generous billionaires." is the same argument.

Dozens out of millions...? If there were a more general frustration with the Adventure Day design, I'm sure it would be up for a change.

 

[Maxperson]

The goal of the release rate is to sell as many books as possible. Between 2012 and 2014 the release rate was even slower.

This is what is known as cherry picking. Choosing the time period where they were playtesting 5e to compare release rates between the two editions is pretty disingenuous. Look at the first 10 years of both editions and let me know which edition was slower with the crunch books.

Books which are used to play the game are game books, doesn't much matter.

Nope! You don't get to change my criteria.

Dozens out of millions...?

No. I'm not making up what those we don't know about are doing. I'm only talking about here on the site.

If there were a more general frustration with the Adventure Day design, I'm sure it would be up for a change.

And you'd be wrong. It's quite literally impossible to change while still maintaining any semblance of backwards compatibility. They'd have to re-write the edition from the ground up, drastically changing everything. It wouldn't even be 5.5e. It would be 6e straight up.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I’m not sure but I think that it’s the height of self entitlement to compare civil rights issues to game companies not listening to you.

Just. Wow.

Yeah…

I understand the point, thanks. I just disagree with it. I've played plenty of both 3e and 4e, and the differences are primarily centered around player-build focused acquisition of powers, the relative utility of out-of-combat power use, and the formalization of freeform skill checks into skill challenges (if desired).

Acting like those are cosmetic changes is complete nonsense, first of all.
Beyond that, there is a huge difference between an assymetrical game where some characters will have a suite of distinct abilities and others will simply leverage attack mechanics and skills on a nearly entirely at-will basis with distinct power imbalance and “ivory tower” design, and a symmetrical game where everyone gains power at the same rate and uses the same set of abilities that recharge on a set schedule and that is built to not require system mastery to “play well”.

We could get into more nuanced distinctions, sure, but that kind of defeats the whole point of what I'm talking about.

If we could get into more nuanced difference…then the difference is more than meaningless cosmetic changes.

But those are roughly the same thing. You can replace one with the other with relatively little loss of utility and function;

False. Objectively.

contrast replacing a Honda Civic with a Harley, a Segway, or a Vespa (to name other motorized conveyances, roughly analogous to the broader TTRPG space).

There being a thing that is even more different, doesn’t make the other things not different from eachother.

They definitely aren’t the same. Beyond performance and driving differences, there are functions that one can do that the other can’t. You literally cannot buy a Honda civic that handles terrain and steep inclines as well as a Bronco, or that can tow a proper trailer, or that can be loaded down with anywhere near the weight a Bronco can, off the top of my head.

The Civic will always get better fuel economy, will be easier to work on at home bc it’s designed that way, take less work to turn into a racing vehicle, and if you performance mod both, they can’t really be put up against eachother meaningfully.

I wouldn’t even know how to begin trying to mod a Civic to go off-road like a Bronco is built to do from the factory.

Perhaps you, like Diogenes, also think that man and a plucked chicken are the same?

 

[Hussar]

I wouldn’t even know how to begin trying to mod a Civic to go off-road like a Bronco is built to do from the factory.

Don't they use civic's for rally racing pretty routinely? It's not like building an off road civic is all that far out of line.

But, you're basic point is well made. A lot of this is all about perspective. A Civic and a Bronco share far, far more similarities than a Civic and a horse.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Don't they use civic's for rally racing pretty routinely? It's not like building an off road civic is all that far out of line.

Rally racing isn’t the same thing as what Jeeps, Broncos, etc, are used for. To make a civic do that would involve rebuilding it.

W But, your basic point is well made. A lot of this is all about perspective. A Civic and a Bronco share far, far more similarities than a Civic and a horse.

Sure, but I never objected to that point. I objected to the claim that the editions of D&D are just the same game with different coats of paint.