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.

​

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

It's possible that some people are "insisting" that WotC gives them "what they want out of the rules" but it seems more likely to me, that people are just discussing what they'd like to see D&D have in its rules, because we're talking about WotC changing the rules to D&D. So why wouldn't we talk about what we'd like to see there? It's rather impossible NOT to. It's what the discussion is about.

Whether it has to come from WotC, or is okay to come from 3PP, is rather moot when we're talking about WotC making new D&D rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's possible that some people are "insisting" that WotC gives them "what they want out of the rules" but it seems more likely to me, that people are just discussing what they'd like to see D&D have in its rules, because we're talking about WotC changing the rules to D&D. So why wouldn't we talk about what we'd like to see there? It's rather impossible NOT to. It's what the discussion is about.

Whether it has to come from WotC, or is okay to come from 3PP, is rather moot when we're talking about WotC making new D&D rules.

Fair enough. My opinions on WotC are well-known, so I'll bow out.

 

[tetrasodium]

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?

I don't view it as a problem. Being limited to simple weapons rather than a unique mix of one off edge case callouts is a large benefit in fact. I say it's a benefit because that modularity allows a complete swap in replacement of the list when the needs of a setting or campaign's themes and tropes call for it. As to the relative power of those simple weapons without further investment, yes I think that's fine or even possibly over good too because we are still talking about casters free to fully invest in benefits to their casting strengths.

The monk may not be a caster, but the packet 6 monk continued to exist with short rest nova class design after wotc walking 5e away from that from Tasha's up till packet 5 so it would just be the first class I've ever flatly banned in decades of GM'ing.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Fair enough. My opinions on WotC are well-known, so I'll bow out.

Well, you don't have to bow out of the discussion. Just be careful when you think you know the motivations behind other posters' opinions.

I think it's rather great that you like Level Up as much as you do. I like it too. At the same time, I can't get any of my players to give it a single look, so it makes sense that I might advocate for WotC to introduce a rule or two that make it, in some way, closer to Level Up. (Though I'm more likely to fight for other changes that aren't in O5e or A5e, because why make D&D more like Level-Up, when you can make it into another form of "better D&D".)

 

[Azzy]

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 agree and so I gave feedback in regards to the weapons.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Let's just say that the derision toward this individual is well earned, so there's a bit of schadenfreude on my part.

Mod Note:

This- plus your earlier quip about the same poster’s “hypocrisy”- definitely rise to the level of making it personal.

It’s OK to feel that way, but against ENWorld’s policies to post such opinions. So you’ve earned som mod attention.

 

[CapnZapp]

Eh. I don't mind unlimited cantrips. I have zero problem with wizards and sorcs having magical pew pews rather than crossbows. What I'm not liking is that a class like bard which has a meaningful choice between a 1d8 rapier and a 1d4 viscous mockery now has a choice between a 1d4 dagger and a 1d6 viscous mockery. Even at low levels now there is no incentive to carry weapons.

<aside>I don't like the idea that some heroes just grow pew pew shooters out of their hands. At least require them to use a wand to shoot their firebolts or whatever, something you can take away so you can shut down their pew-pew-ing ability.</aside>

As for the general case, if cantrips were limited to physically hopeless classes (like single-classed wizards and sorcs) then maybe. But we all know that's not going to happen. The game will never restrict access to cantrip-using classes, and in fact, hybrid classes are fun and should be welcomed.

So we circle back to the problem. The reason you get your bard's dagger problem is because of unlimited cantrips!

See? You can't just go "don't mind wizards pew pewing" without recognizing that EVERYBODY gets magical pew pewing! Few classes are entirely non-magical, and all of them can use far heavier weapons than daggers.

Either accept that the price for convenient pew-pewing is that simple weapons become obsolete (for PCs), or don't have convenient pew-pewing. Simple

 

[CapnZapp]

I think part of that stems from not having an opportunity cost for one of the two choices there and making that choice also unbound from equipment. Those unlimited innate inbuilt self scaling cantrips unbound from a "weapon" like a vicious mockery lute / arcane staff of acid splash / reliquary of sacred flame have an inordinately large benefit and being unlimited rather than charge or slot powered takes too much pressure from spell slots

WotC's chosen solution is simple. Too simple, and sloppy, and uncaring for what it means to world building.

They could easily have recognized how innate unlimited scaling cantrips completely out-compete all but the best weapons.

Make it so you need to hold something in order to pew pew (could be a wand but could be anything). That something can then be taken away. That's a good thing, since now prison guards don't need to cut off your fingers, they only need to confiscate your pointy thing.

Make that something not-a-weapon, so you don't count as armed (you don't provoke attacks of opportunity, and no, only people trained in unarmed combat should be able to make opportunity attacks while unarmed).

Rebalance the game so cantrips don't outclass weapons. Currently cantrips deal far more damage at far greater range than daggers. d6 cantrip damage should be considered great, not mediocre. Drop the idea cantrips get your best mental stat as a bonus to damage; if you want a bonus to damage, consider cantrips to be finesse weapons and have wizards live by the same rules as rogues and bards.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

I don't see how "the rapier is the clearly best weapon, so everybody ends up using it" is a better solution, sorry.

If you want to use daggers or rapiers should not matter. The damage expression should be competitive in either case. When the game allows you to express your character through weapon selection without significant nerfing that is a good game IMO.

Since the real-world reasons for choosing a dagger can't be simulated in D&D, why not simply say that you get to choose the same damage die no matter your weapon of choice. Obviously dependant on class. Maybe instead give shorter weapons a slight initiative penalty (assuming damage is so important nobody can't pick a weapon that deals less damage while a -2 to +2 modifier to initiative isn't decisive)

Obviously balancing daggers to be functionally competitive with rapiers even though they retain their d4 would be preferable. Like their idea to balance various martial weapons using both damage and special abilities.

But as I said, I wouldn't mind every Fighter getting a d8 damage die with a one-handed weapon and a d12 damage die with two-handed weapons. Whether these are hammers, mauls or axes don't matter.

I guess I can't be bothered about bards not getting rapiers, since that is in itself something that bothers me...

 

[CapnZapp]

Or maybe expand the equipment list?

For armor, absolutely!