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.

​

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't want to go down a Rabbit hole of litigating cantrips. Clearly they aren't going anywhere. My point is that the weapons for casters have lost what little utility they had from 2014. Simple Weapons are trash. They are a bunch of strength based weapons dedicated to characters who have every reason to dump strength. A bard or druid had an option beyond dagger if they wanted to carry a weapon, now they don't. That's a nerf to their choices and one to class identity.

There is a larger deeper discussion about dump stats and unlimited cantrips that could be had, but that discussion is beyond the scope of the changes WotC is willing to make. Giving classes that had access to swords their swords back should not be difficult.

Or maybe expand the equipment list?

 

[Remathilis]

Or maybe expand the equipment list?

I'm not against that either, but I really kinda still want my bards to have rapiers, druids to have scimitars and monks to have ninja-to (shortswords) because those are iconic.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't want to go down a Rabbit hole of litigating cantrips. Clearly they aren't going anywhere. My point is that the weapons for casters have lost what little utility they had from 2014. Simple Weapons are trash. They are a bunch of strength based weapons dedicated to characters who have every reason to dump strength. A bard or druid had an option beyond dagger if they wanted to carry a weapon, now they don't. That's a nerf to their choices and one to class identity.

There is a larger deeper discussion about dump stats and unlimited cantrips that could be had, but that discussion is beyond the scope of the changes WotC is willing to make. Giving classes that had access to swords their swords back should not be difficult.

That's kind of the point. Cantrips are lifting so much weight that casters don't have the free capacity to lift more with something else (ie better weapons/wand shaped weapons or limited slots/items) and the design of cantrips themselves severs them from any sort of split in character build/equipment load to fork apart into separate paths

Somewhere along the lines someone at wotc asked a question like "what would be a cool thing for casters to do when they aren't casting leveled spells". That got a list

Spoiler: like so

• A minor spell with unlimited use
• A minor spell that does damage somewhat comparable to martial damage but
• A minor ability to reliably deal some damage using the casting attribute
• A minor spell that doesn't require a charged item
• A minor spell that doesn't require getting the right loot to fuel it's growth with character levels
• Etc

Then they took the best of all six and dropped all the mitigating factors in the process. Simply linking the cantrips themselves to items that a character needs to wield and upgrade over time (even mundane OTC level gated ones) would allow the fork that leads to those scimitars rapiers and short swords being meaningful to be placed on meaningful weapon switching limits without impacting math and carrying capacity of the monster hp&PC dpr numbers themselves.

 

[Umbran]

I've played WotC D&D from the advent of 3e to about a year ago. I think I have a fairly solid handle on what they think is important and how their priorities have changed over the years, particularly recently.

Mod Note:
You start with an appeal to authority, without recognizing that many here have even more relevant experience than you.

You then get to "since I know better, you all should do this thing I do," with the unspoken implication that they should go do that and stop talking in the thread.

That's causing problems, and you continuing to hold to this approach will worsen those problems, so you should consider changing it.

One possible example: Perhaps you should approach the discussion from the position that you have no more real information than anyone else, and that you are here less to proclaim truth than you are to explore possibilities.

 

[Remathilis]

That's kind of the point. Cantrips are lifting so much weight that casters don't have the free capacity to lift more with something else (ie better weapons/wand shaped weapons or limited slots/items) and the design of cantrips themselves severs them from any sort of split in character build/equipment load to fork apart into separate paths

Somewhere along the lines someone at wotc asked a question like "what would be a cool thing for casters to do when they aren't casting leveled spells". That got a list

Spoiler: like so

• A minor spell with unlimited use
• A minor spell that does damage somewhat comparable to martial damage but
• A minor ability to reliably deal some damage using the casting attribute
• A minor spell that doesn't require a charged item
• A minor spell that doesn't require getting the right loot to fuel it's growth with character levels
• Etc

Then they took the best of all six and dropped all the mitigating factors in the process. Simply linking the cantrips themselves to items that a character needs to wield and upgrade over time (even mundane OTC level gated ones) would allow the fork that leads to those scimitars rapiers and short swords being meaningful to be placed on meaningful weapon switching limits without impacting math and carrying capacity of the monster hp&PC dpr numbers themselves.

Again, this might be an interesting debate when we start designing 6e, but giving classes back their iconic weapons doesn't' require that. Even if they are subpar choices, they should remain choices. But WotC thinks every class should either look like a warrior or a mage.

 

[WanderingMystic]

Again, this might be an interesting debate when we start designing 6e, but giving classes back their iconic weapons doesn't' require that. Even if they are subpar choices, they should remain choices. But WotC thinks every class should either look like a warrior or a mage.

So for Druids I don't mind the changes at all since you can just take warden at first level instead of magician and unless you are going for a strength build shillelagh has always been better than scimitar.

Now for bards I would honestly prefer to just give them martial weapons but to me they were better as half casters so ymmv.

Monks are in a horrible place right now and I let them know how I felt even if they made short swords simple it wouldn't fix their problems.

 

[Remathilis]

So for Druids I don't mind the changes at all since you can just take warden at first level instead of magician and unless you are going for a strength build shillelagh has always been better than scimitar.

Now for bards I would honestly prefer to just give them martial weapons but to me they were better as half casters so ymmv.

Monks are in a horrible place right now and I let them know how I felt even if they made short swords simple it wouldn't fix their problems.

I mostly agree: I think druids are the least affected overall, except for legacy elements. And while giving monk a shortsword isn't going to fix the problems with the class, it does reek of kicking them while they're down. But bards have always had a mix of simple and martial weapons (even before such categories existed) and generally kept to the same weapons rogues use. I can't imagine letting a bard have a rapier is going to make them op.

 

[tetrasodium]

Again, this might be an interesting debate when we start designing 6e, but giving classes back their iconic weapons doesn't' require that. Even if they are subpar choices, they should remain choices. But WotC thinks every class should either look like a warrior or a mage.

I disagree. You are calling for a power increase and trying to sweep the power offset off to a later edition or something. Only talking about and listening to the gimmegimmegimme side of CharOp and sweeping the offset onto the gm's shoulders is how we got to this problem in 2014

 

[Remathilis]

I disagree. You are calling for a power increase and trying to sweep the power offset off to a later edition or something. Only talking about and listening to the gimmegimmegimme side of CharOp and sweeping the offset onto the gm's shoulders is how we got to this problem in 2014

Let me ask the question in reverse:

Do you think the bard, monk and druid are now balanced due to their change to only simple weapons in a way they were not balanced in 2014?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not against that either, but I really kinda still want my bards to have rapiers, druids to have scimitars and monks to have ninja-to (shortswords) because those are iconic.

Oh sure. All those things are fine in my game. I'm just trying to find ways for people who insist on following WotC to get what they want out of the rules.