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.


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.


 

log in or register to remove this ad

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I agree entirely, but think the punt they gave us on weapons without nuance answers the question. Id love to see proper tables of weapons and armors with actual nuance and depth but think wotc is too committed to enthusiastically bowing before the 31% veto for them to even consider it before someone else does it.
Many other people have done it!
 

log in or register to remove this ad


CapnZapp

Legend
Many other people have done it!
This is a fundamental aspect of the basic rules. Introducing a new armor list as a house rule would be huge pain in the ass. Too many people use editable PDFs, apps or online tools. This isn't a case of "you can't play this specific race or subclass".

The only solution is fixing the default core rules.

They're already changing up loads of details all over the place, why is this particular bit not open for improvement? I want and expect WotC to actually fix the things that in retrospect came out too simplistic back in 2014 when they release new editions.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
This is a fundamental aspect of the basic rules. Introducing a new armor list as a house rule would be huge pain in the ass. Too many people use editable PDFs, apps or online tools. This isn't a case of "you can't play this specific race or subclass".

The only solution is fixing the default core rules.

They're already changing up loads of details all over the place, why is this particular bit not open for improvement? I want and expect WotC to actually fix the things that in retrospect came out too simplistic back in 2014 when they release new editions.
If you actually  expect WotC to do this, I expect you're in for some disappointment.

And yeah, change the core rules if you have to. There are many new armor types in Level Up, for example, and it works just fine.

If you insist on WotC, however, you have to play with their deck, and they have zero incentive to change it in any significant way.
 

Remathilis

Legend
Did they touch armor?

D&D 5E offers 12 types of armor... but in reality at least half of those are entirely wasted and thoroughly inferior.

Nobody uses padded or leather armor when studded leather is right there. Hide and scale mail are only ever used by NPCs. Ring mail is a joke.

And that's the non-starters. There really are only 1 choice for light armor users, 2 choices for medium armor users, and 2 choices for heavy armor users (and that's actually no choice at all since it's simply a matter of cost). Note how this means that yes, there are five or six choices or so in total (especially when you add in "no armor" as an armor choice) there is never more than two mainstream choices for any given character.

My question is: Does WotC appear interested in revisiting the wide and wonderful variety of armor from previous (A)D&D editions and actually provide us with more than two actual viable choices for a given character?

I would love it if D&D One/5.5/6E would offer at least three solid build choices as regards armor for each of the three categories!

Give us a mechanical reason why a character would stay with chain mail despite having more than enough coin to purchase full plate! Meaningfully separate less bulky forms of light armor from studded leather. Not make breastplate the obviously best choice in the medium category. Make hide and scale mail interesting, not stupid, choices!

PS. If you really must provide armor choices for NPC usage only, at least add that on top of the choices that make up mainstream PC builds. That is, I can live with hide and ring mail. But first there should be a solid ten choices for mainstream player character builds.
IMHO they have made it worse by simplifying classes to either two groups of weapons (simple or simple/martial) along with the three armors. Classes that had a mix of simple and martial weapons now are simple only and the simple list is bad. It's staff, spear, mace and dagger for finesse. Classes that once had a finesse sword option (monk, druid, bard) lost them unless they pick a subclass or feat that will give them access to full martial, and at that point you might as well build for melee.

They are really doing a lot to make you either build for combat or for spellcasting with no hybrid in between. To the point that if you don't have access to martial weapons, you might as well not carry a weapon at all.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
They are really doing a lot to make you either build for combat or for spellcasting with no hybrid in between. To the point that if you don't have access to martial weapons, you might as well not carry a weapon at all.
Might be just me... but I don't see the hindrance of carrying a Simple 1d6 shortsword rather than a Martial 1d8 longsword to equate to as might as well being unarmed?

It's a point of damage less. How can that be such a grave issue? Haven't people been screaming about how the Flex weapon property sucks because it's only a point of damage gain? How can that one point of damage be a meaningless boon for weapon mastery but be this huge burden for proficiency?
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Might be just me... but I don't see the hindrance of carrying a Simple 1d6 shortsword rather than a Martial 1d8 longsword to equate to as might as well being unarmed?

It's a point of damage less. How can that be such a grave issue? Haven't people been screaming about how the Flex weapon property sucks because it's only a point of damage gain? How can that one point of damage be a meaningless boon for weapon mastery but be this huge burden for proficiency?
By the same token, why remove an option they used to have?
 

Remathilis

Legend
Might be just me... but I don't see the hindrance of carrying a Simple 1d6 shortsword rather than a Martial 1d8 longsword to equate to as might as well being unarmed?

It's a point of damage less. How can that be such a grave issue? Haven't people been screaming about how the Flex weapon property sucks because it's only a point of damage gain? How can that one point of damage be a meaningless boon for weapon mastery but be this huge burden for proficiency?
Shortswords are simple. They are martial again. If short swords were simple, a lot of problems would be solved.

As it stands, bards, clerics, druids, monks, warlocks, sorcerers and wizards get simple only. (Druid and Cleric can upgrade to Martial via their order but let's assume we are looking primarily for a spellcaster with a backup weapon). If you're going to be a caster, you're prioritizing Dex over Str (often to the point Str is a dump stat). Lets take each class in order.

A Bard used to have the gold standard of finesse weapons: the rapier. Most bards have good dexterity scores because of skills and light armor, so the rapier was a no brainer. On the simple weapon chart, there is a single finesse weapon: the dagger. Every other simple weapon use Strength, and most cap at d6 1 handed, d8 two-handed. If a bard dumps Str (8) and has a moderate dex (14) his options are a 1d4+2 dagger (3 points of damage) or 1d8-1 two-handed spear (3 points of damage). There is almost NO reason to do either when you have firebolt on the arcane list, sacred flame on the divine, and shillelagh on the primal list, plus viscious mockery (upgraded to d6). The bard should leave his weapons at home and carry his lute two-handed.

The Cleric has a little more leeway since they get medium armor and shields, allowing them to splurge on Strength and carry a mace or spear 1h, both doing 1d6 damage. There is no reason though to pick the caster option over the martial though; 1 extra cantrip and a bonus on religion checks is =/= to martial weapons and heavy armor. And if you are picking the Protector, you might as well opt for a longsword or other d8 weapon.

The Druid already had little reason to ever carry a weapon; shillelagh and wild shape handled 99% of their combat needs. In the rare occasions they wanted a weapon, the scimitar was a finesse weapon which (like the bard) allowed them to use their moderate dex to dump Str (and dump Str on a druid is a no brainer choice since again, you're either casting or you're a bear). The Warden Choice is again superior to the Magician one, but that's only for the armor. If you are insisting on Magician, your options look a lot like the bard (or worse, since druids get shield proficiency which makes 2h a spear or staff less appealing. So again, if a 1d4 +2 dagger or 1d6-1 spear are your choices, just spam shillelagh.

The monk could warrant a whole novel on what weapons vs unarmed strike means. Rather than deal with the damage, I'll touch on the other issue: monk's can't qualify for any good feats. Going by the Experts UA feats, here are the feats they cannot use: Charger, Crossbow Expert, Dual Wielder, Fighting Style (any), Great Weapon Master, Mage Slayer, Mounted Combatant, Polearm Master, Sentinel, Sharpshooter. All of which they COULD have qualified for because they had a single martial weapon: the short sword. The monk is a fighting class with the combat options of a caster class.

Warlocks already have the best ranged attack in the game (eldritch blast) and unless you are going bladepact, there is no reason to ever carry a weapon. This was already a problem in 2014 and now it's spread to other classes.

Sorcerer and Wizard actually GAINED proficiency in additional weapons (greatclub, handaxe, light hammer, javelin mace, sickle, spear and shortbow). None are actually much better than the choices they already had. Again, dagger for finesse vs two-handed spear/staff is a wash since caster's dump strength and need dex for AC, and every ranged cantrip is superior to ranged weapons like light crossbows and shortbows.

As an honorable mention: the rogue gets simple weapons AND finesse martial weapons. This is because WotC realized that the only simple weapons you can sneak attack with are ranged weapons and daggers, so they tossed them a bone gave them rapier and shortsword. It's the only class that also breaks the simple or simple/martial by giving them simple + not full martial.

Ideally, this is how I would fix it:

1.) Move scimitar and shortsword to the simple list. They are d6 finesse weapons and aren't breaking anything on non-mastery characters.
2.) Give Bards the same base proficiency as Rogues: simple + Finesse martial.
3.) Allow a monk to treat unarmed strikes as martial weapons for purposes of picking feats.

Yes, I already left this feedback.
 

Honestly, I don't care what the Ranger's identity is, so long as the core mechanic of the class is engaging and fun. Is a free cast of Hunter's Mark fun? I guess, but a lot more fun if it did something special depending on your subclass. I need just a little diversity, WotC. Paladin ahs 6 different kinds of smites but I get just one hunter's mark? Booooo
 

CapnZapp

Legend
If you actually  expect WotC to do this, I expect you're in for some disappointment.

And yeah, change the core rules if you have to. There are many new armor types in Level Up, for example, and it works just fine.

If you insist on WotC, however, you have to play with their deck, and they have zero incentive to change it in any significant way.
Strange.

This is a discussion where we ventilate our feedback on WotC's materials.

But somehow some opinions aren't valid, as if we must play by a set of rules where we just mimic the emotions of an uncritical consumer-happy customer.

You could apply that last sentence of yours to literally any poster's feedback if it doesn't align perfectly with what WotC ends up doing.

Why are you wasting time trying to negate and invalidate my suggestions when loads of people get a free pass on theirs? Why bring up entirely different games (I'm discussing D&D 5.5, not Level Up or GURPS or Monopoly)?

It's so useless I don't know what so say. Why aren't you responding to my suggestions with things like "I don't mind the current armor types" or "here are my ideal armor types"? You know - actually constructive discussion. If you and enough people would actually not give WotC a free pass for not giving a crap about fixing a lot of the wonkier stuff of 5E, maybe WotC would actually feel compelled to do something about it.
 

Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top