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]

oh, so I can handwave all of that away, if I can come up with ‘reasons’. Then why even bother holding martials to realism when casters are exempt by default

Because the martial descriptions as written don't assume use of supernatural elements, and the caster classes (as well as folks like the Monk) do.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah it just is a bummer because IMO Abjuration spells are so much more interesting than Evocation, and I’d rather not see Bladesinger in the PHB.

I mean, who knows, the College of Dance might have stolen their thunder, lol. Evoker and Necromancer are the extent of what we know, WotC certainly is capable of surprising still.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think there's a monster with resistance to "non-magical weapons". It's always "resistant to slashing/bludgeoning/piercing damage from non-magical weapons". So Force would absolutely go through that.

There are also a number of features that in the developer comments say they “ignore damage resistance” and in the actual text of the feature say they deal force damage. So, reading between the lines, I think it’s a safe bet that nothing in the new monster manual is going to resist force damage.

 

[Charlaquin]

Also, having looked for "tool proficiency," apparently they actually are adding a rule to let a stacked skill+tool proficiency matter. If you have a relevant proficiency in both skill and tool, you get Advantage on the check. Of course, that just (again) makes Advantage horrifically over-used, but at least it's being over-used in a way that makes up for some other fault. I guess.

That was introduced in Xanathar’s Guide to Everything, they’re just incorporating it into the PHB now.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Eh it’s always been more a cleric thing that is misplaced on the Paladin, but making it a BA just makes it usuable in a fight. It’s fine.

Couldn't disagree more. "I give of myself, to replenish you" is peak Paladin. Of course, it only ever actually worked that way in 4e, but a man can dream.

What’s frustrating is that the 2014 version of the smite spells are mostly better than the divine smite class feature, because you’re frightening or whatever at the cost of like 2 average damage and a bonus action.

Really? I had always been under the impression that the 2014 smite spells were niche in most cases.

I mean, the Bard isn’t an even successful at being a Bard,

What would be required for that, in your opinion? They seem reasonably Bard-y to me.

but even with the fact that JoAT fits Rangers more than Bards,

...what? Really? Okay I have to hear the justification for this one.

what you describe still doesn’t make a Ranger.

What would be required for that, in your opinion? I do agree that a Primal Bard with a few nicked spells does not a Ranger make, but I am curious what you think would push a Bard over the line. E.g., I have previously proposed a "College of

God no. Few things would make me ditch D&D quicker.

On this, at least, we're fully agreed.

It’s just a new part of 5e.

Seems to me they're waffling back and forth on that. For a while, it looked 100% like (regardless of how one may or may not feel about the label) a "3.5e revised" approach, very nearly same but not identical. With this packet, however, they're making moves that attempt to preserve the levels at which classes get their subclass features, other than normalizing many choices to level 3 (which I think is their likely-ineffectual attempt to tell people "START AT LEVEL 3 unless you explicitly want the experience of starting at level 1.") That seems to push it closer to Essentials, but it isn't really the same either. The "updated" versions are pretty clearly intended to truly replace the original PHB; it's not like the Knight (or any other Essentials subclass) which does not replace the Fighter (or any other "original" 4e class.) Making it easier or even seamless to use 2014 subclasses is nice, of course, but the kinds of changes they've implemented

 

[Charlaquin]

Also, big fan of "magic action" being a thing. I did that in one or two PDFs I sell (one of which was ripped by a reviewer for using a non-standard spell block, even though the description online clearly indicates that)

I wish it was “use magic,” so it fit grammatically with the other actions.

 

[Charlaquin]

So, it looks like "magical piercing/slashing/bludgeoning" damage is going away. All the features that would normally grant it instead offer "do normal or Force (or Radiant for the Moon Druid)" damage.

Huzzah!

 

[Charlaquin]

Well ... this new Druid has problems then. Back to MM statblocks means no Owlbear and Doric's escape from the tower uses 6 forms (fly, mouse, hawk, cat, deer and ... chocobo?). I know, the movie and RPG aren't the same things, but it's just funny that the current design doesn't take that into account.

Wouldn’t be at all surprised to see owlbears become beasts in the new MM.

The “chocobo” was an axe beak.

 

[Incenjucar]

So this is not me saying nobody else should enjoy this, we all have different tastes, but after scanning through the latest document, I don't think I'm the audience that WotC is interested in, so I'm going to leave it to the folks who enjoy it. I'll be keeping enough attention to understand the balance of things in case they surprise me, and so I can keep the balance of things in mind for stuff I'm working on, but most of what I'm seeing is that I'd be better off with something like A5E or whatever comes out of ORC. The stuff with the rogue is at least in a positive direction, but the word "spell" is starting to make me twitch when I read it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Weapon Mastery is headed in an interesting direction, but there's still some sore points. Like, Monks get it, but have little use for it. Unarmed Strike is just so good now, and a lot of Simple weapons have traits that aren't useful for Monks like Flex and Nick. OTOH, War Clerics get it, which is cool. Does that mean Blade Warlock will too in their revision? I can only hope so.

Hard to say, since Valor bards inexplicably don’t get it.