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.

​

 

[Remathilis]

And we’ll see if that survives the next pass.

Any bets?

Provided the Cult of DM Dominance can somehow be convinced, I'd say pretty good odds.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Has nothing to do with finance.

The fandom rejects changes. Full stop. They ran into this in 4e. Then in 2014. Now again ten years later. Thank goodness the internet wasn’t a thing when 3e was released or we’d still have THAC0 and percentile strength.

That's what I meant. Too different, not enough people will buy it for it to be financially viable for them, especially with the standards of profit they have. Which means small changes that might discourage existing players from buying it at all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And aren't you also one of those people that complains about how many classes and subclasses in 5e get access to magic? The fact that most of the cool abilities in 5e have to be magical is the reason for that issue.

Also, D&D is a fantasy world. You could just have your headcanon be "martial characters are have magical muscles that let them do superhuman things" in order to get rid of any perceived contradictions with a "mundane" character performing superhuman acts.

No, that wasn't me.

I'm fine with people being capable of supernatural stuff. But the default for classes without explicit supernatural abilities is that they are, at most, at an action hero level of shenanigans. If you want more, change the narrative, or you'll keep having these arguments.

For the record, you don't have to have magic to do cool stuff in 5e. Fighters and rogues have no inherent supernatural narrative in Level Up, for example, and both are capable of doing a lot of cool stuff.

 

[Azzy]

Thank goodness the internet wasn’t a thing when 3e was released or we’d still have THAC0 and percentile strength.

Huh? This very site (when it was still maintained by Eric Noah) came into its influence by dropping previews and leaks about 3e before its release. I'm that old.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Magic has no more basis in reality than hit points or flying dragons.

If we're going by "reality" then sticking someone with three foot of steel should be potentially lethal with every hit. Fighters aren't "realistic" in D&D - they are walking around with cinematic durability and nerf bats as weapons.

Fighters don't live in reality and are subject to unrealistic constraints as both strengths and weaknesses. The pretense that fighters should be bound by "reality" because they live in a realistic setting is weak in low level oD&D at low level, threadbare in 5e at tier 1, and simply laughable at tier 2 in 5e

The D&D world simply is gonzo. Why do you try to force "reality" onto fighters when fighting with hit points is so starkly, visibly gonzo? The second a character can survive a critical hit from an orc with an axe with the only penalty being they can take fewer hits in future they have clearly left reality behind.

I'm not thrilled with hit points either, but its not the ultimate answer to this argument that some people seem to think it is. There is a spectrum for this stuff, and you can accept the necessary evil of hit points, try to make it work for you, and still try for reasonable simulation in other areas. TSR and WOTC have both done it to various degrees for decades now. So has the OSR.

And where does it say in the books that D&D is "gonzo" (a fan word if ever I saw one) to the extent that realism as we know it on Earth has no place in it, for any PC? Seriously, show me your evidence.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think the material in here has a strong chance of seeing publication. This is their first serious "we can send this to the printer once we double check our math" proposal.

Except for the monk.

 

[Azzy]

I'm fine with people being capable of supernatural stuff. But the default for classes without explicit supernatural abilities is that they are, at most, at an action hero level of shenanigans. If you want more, change the narrative, or you'll keep having these arguments.

The narrative has been since 2e that fighters drew inspiration from legendary and mythic characters—and yet we're still having these arguments.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And where does it say in the books that D&D is "gonzo" (a fan word if ever I saw one) to the extent that realism as we know it on Earth has no place in it, for any PC? Seriously, show me your evidence.

Where does it say in the books that being bound to strict reality is necessary for any PC?

I think that we can agree that 9/13 classes clearly aren't bound to reality because they are casters, and the monk isn't either. So that's at a minimum three quarters of classes that aren't. You are arguing that a quarter of classes (less, really due to things like subclasses like the totem warrior and abilities like Second Wind) are an outlier. Which means that when you say "three of the classes in specific are not supposed to function like the rest" the burden of proof is on you

Show me where the game highlights the barbarian, fighter, and rogue and says "these three classes are special because they are bound to mundane reality in a way the rest aren't. And please forget that they are supposed to face the same challenges and provide equivalent contributions to classes that face no equivalent handicaps."

 

[Micah Sweet]

The narrative has been since 2e that fighters drew inspiration from legendary and mythic characters—and yet we're still having these arguments.

Back then, the rules never really backed that narrative though, did they? And since that time, for most of the versions moving forward the narrative has become significantly less "mythic" for such classes.

This is why I support the idea of a mythic fighter or superhero class, with access to a wide variety of supernatural abilities, from the subtle to the overt, and a narrative that supports this. I wrote such a narrative in a closed thread about a week ago that appeared to meet with sufficient approval with which to go forward.

This way, those who want a mundane warrior still have it, and those who want more "pizazz" out of their fantasy fighters can have that too.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Huh? This very site (when it was still maintained by Eric Noah) came into its influence by dropping previews and leaks about 3e before its release. I'm that old.

Cook said they wanted to go to ascending AC for 2e, but the higher ups wanted everything to be compatible with 2e. So really, nothing to do with WotC. Also, you didn't need the internet to have fans of the outgoing edition get really upset. Didn't have the internet when 2e came out, but boy, still was a LOT of noise from upset fans then too. (mostly around getting rid of half orcs, assassins, and devils/demons). We still has the post office back then, so TSR got lots of feedback.