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.

​

 

[Emberashh]

WOTC shouldn't ignore the fans, but it sure would be nice if fans could ignore themselves, especially when the fans aren't here to defend themselves against other fans.

So much arguing against good ideas not because theres disagreement with the idea but because its assumed a non-present mass of people won't like it.

 

[Remathilis]

If your only reply can be an attempt to bring politics into this (with words like "enlightened" and "radical") you don't have very good arguments.

Politics be damned. You should see what they have done when companies ignore their audience in favor of a single creative team's vision.

Let me give you a taste: Snyderverse. Ghostbusters 2016. Dark Universe.

 

[Hussar]

I think something should be said for incremental innovation as well. 4e was too radical a 180 from 3e. I wager a world where 5e comes after 3e (a stripped down and simpler game that borrows heavily from classic aesthetics) followed by Essentials (4e style rules with a classic aesthetic) followed by 4e Classic (new lore, new mechanics) would have been easier for many to accept. There is something to be said about the frog on the slowly heated pan...

But 3e was no different. A complete 180 from adnd, and about the same shelf life as 4e.

4e’s woes rarely had anything truly to do with mechanics.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, 4E is one of the five editions that weren't created by committee, and it failed. Your point?

3e? Not exactly setting the world on fire was it? Lasted about a year longer than 4e, depending on how you count.

But I get it. This is just edition warring with a funny set of glasses. I’m done.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think 5E is an Evergreen game and I don't see 5E existing for a fraction of the length Settlers have existed (not to mention Monopoly).

Overthrowing the rules is the standard in the business and WotC will do precisely that once sales are tanking sufficiently that a mere coat of paint (like with the upcoming 5.5) will no longer suffice.

Umm what? Catalan came out in the mid nineties. So it’s thirty(ish) years old. 5e is turning ten next year or so. It’s already existed a significant fraction of the time Cataan has.

 

[CapnZapp]

You keep usingg this phrase, "design by comittee," but the current revision isn't any more or less a comittee design than pre-modern D&D ever was (more lile 20 Editions than 5, BTW). The designers are just iteratimg their design in a manner that gathers public feedback as a way to test the appeal of their designs, which will naturally be conservative for a popular and functional game. Why should a game company design a product any other way than to maximize appeal to players...?

Hmm.. First you aim to deflect my criticism by saying the current edition isn't designed any differently than previous ones... and then you immediately contradict yourself by saying they're iterating over feedback.

This comes off as a non-reply, mostly as something you'd write not to have to concede the argument.

I'll just say that you don't maximize appeal to customers... by asking customers. It's baffling how anyone could sincerely believe that.

What you do when you don't want to rock the (money) boat you're sitting in, but still feel compelled to display innovation... THAT'S when you ask your players.

 

[CapnZapp]

Umm what? Catalan came out in the mid nineties. So it’s thirty(ish) years old. 5e is turning ten next year or so. It’s already existed a significant fraction of the time Cataan has.

I didn't check, so you're technically right. While that is the best kind of right; that wasn't the message I was trying to send.

 

[Remathilis]

But 3e was no different. A complete 180 from adnd, and about the same shelf life as 4e.

4e’s woes rarely had anything truly to do with mechanics.

That depends on how you're measuring. Do you count 3.0 and 3.5 separately? What about Pathfinder? Do you consider the volume of all the 3pp products that coexisted with it? I don't think you can truly compare all the products that were compatible with the 3e PHB with all the products compatible with the 4e PHB and say they are equal.

And while I do agree 3e was a departure from AD&D, I don't agree it's a 180 degree change. Much of it was based on the common complaints that a decade of AD&D produced. Moreover, the core game play loop was the same: the fighter had feats but felt like the fighter. Spellcasting was similar enough that if you know the old system, you can understand the new. Far more far more so, 4e introduced ideas that were never seen in any D&D prior like spells "attacking" saves (er defenses), level 17 spells and the whole ADEU power structure. It had less connective tissue to AD&D than 3e had to AD&D and it's the connective tissue that gets people who aren't dissatisfied to switch.

(My go to example of this: imagine trying to explain to a non -gamer how a wizard casts fireball. Four editions of the game will use similar terminology: third level spell slot, saving throw for half, etc. One edition will not.)

Which was ultimately my point; a large chunk of the audience wasn't ready for something like 4e yet. You need at least another iteration or so to ease into those changes. You need the fighter to get abilities that recover on a short rest like the 5e fighter to guide into the slayer/knight of essentials to finally guide into something like the 4e fighter with dailies and encounter powers. The time was wrong for a 4e style evolution and the audience wasn't there yet.

 

[Parmandur]

Hmm.. First you aim to deflect my criticism by saying the current edition isn't designed any differently than previous ones... and then you immediately contradict yourself by saying they're iterating over feedback.

This comes off as a non-reply, mostly as something you'd write not to have to concede the argument.

I'll just say that you don't maximize appeal to customers... by asking customers. It's baffling how anyone could sincerely believe that.

What you do when you don't want to rock the (money) boat you're sitting in, but still feel compelled to display innovation... THAT'S when you ask your players.

Why would testing what appeals to players not maximize appeal to players...?

I honestly am not sure what you are arguing for? That WotC shouldn't gather feedback on what works and doesn't? Or that they should actively ignore it for some reason...?

As long as they are designing a game whose goal is to appeal to users, gathering data on what users like and then designing to meet that is the only logical path. "Innovation" isn't neccesarily a good end in and of itself for the design goal of broad appeal. And again, they could keep this up for decades, as have other games.

 

[Parmandur]

I didn't check, so you're technically right. While that is the best kind of right; that wasn't the message I was trying to send.

But what message were you trying to send? Why is there any particular reason to doubt that WotC can keep modern D&D going this easy for another 20+ years?