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]

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."

The post below is the opinion of Micah Sweet and may not reflect the views of any other poster or company, including Wizards of the Coast or Hasbro, inc., all rights reserved.

WotC has never meant balance between classes in any way beyond combat, and even that is mostly in terms of attack, damage and defense. What they value in the CR system shows this. In these areas the classes are roughly equivalent. If you want more, and I fully understand wanting more, you have to go outside WotC to get it.

And the supernatural parts of PCs are not determined by majority rules and never have been. Each class has its own narrative. Most of those classes have supernatural abilities built into their core, and thus assumed. Three do not, so supernatural abilities are not assumed. I don't see any ambiguity here that the viewer didn't bring with them into the discussion. If you want supernatural abilities for barbarian, fighter, and rogue, either take a subclass that provides them (as has been the case since 5e began), or change the narrative of the base class in the book so that can be broadened to accommodate such abilities. Its not that hard, and once it's done, you have evidence to back up your claims.

All this assumes of course that you are asking for published material backing your agenda. At your own table, you can obviously do whatever you want.

 

[Azzy]

Back then, the rules never really backed that narrative though, did they?

No, unfortunately. It was a broken promise. But at least the Complete Fighter's Handbook started to add in options that allowed the fighter to do more and act more like the fiction.

And since that time, for most of the versions moving forward the narrative has become significantly less "mythic" for such classes.

Not really. Each edition after 2e (except 5e, which took fighters backward) made the fighter more capable of legendary feats. It's high time that 5e let fighters at least do the things they could in previous editions.

 

[Azzy]

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.

True.

 

[Remathilis]

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

The paragraph you reference says thusly;

"The fighter is a warrior, an expert in weapons and, if he is clever, tactics and strategy. There are many famous fighter from legend: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John, Tristan, and Sinbad. History is crowded with great generals and warriors: El Cid, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, and Belisarius. Your fighter could be modeled after any of these, or he could be unique. A visit to your local library can uncover many heroic fighters."

Nothing there says mythic. It says famous and heroic. Further, it puts Hercules on par with Alexander the Great, who is very much at different power levels.

I'm not arguing the fighter shouldn't have some access to supernatural abilities, but I am saying that there is very little precedent for it from older editions.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Back then, the rules never really backed that narrative though, did they?

Back then they also didn't arm the fighters with nerf bats in line with more cinematic damage. The fighter got 1.5 attacks per round at level 1, the longsword did d12 vs large while an ogre had 19hp and AC actually mattered. A level 1 greatsword specialist in 2e could plausibly bring down two ogres in a round while the ogre had 4hd so about the equivalent of +4 to hit under new rules.

You might claim that fighters were realistic - but they were realistic in the way John Wick is - and got one attack per level per round against non-combatants. And when someone faced off against a fighter they were in the fighter's world.

Meanwhile in 5e the world is a lot more gonzo. A basic orc has 15hp and an ogre has 59. No one is bringing down two ogres in a round, and a level 2 fighter with action surge needs to be fairly lucky to kill two orcs in a round. That orc has +5 to hit, meaning that heavy armour provides less protection against a 5e orc than a 2e ogre.

So yes the world has changed. Your attempts to fossilise the fighter and make them the only realistic thing in a gonzo world leaves them using stone weapons against people in steel armour. It's a different age

 

[Micah Sweet]

The paragraph you reference says thusly;

"The fighter is a warrior, an expert in weapons and, if he is clever, tactics and strategy. There are many famous fighter from legend: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John, Tristan, and Sinbad. History is crowded with great generals and warriors: El Cid, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, and Belisarius. Your fighter could be modeled after any of these, or he could be unique. A visit to your local library can uncover many heroic fighters."

Nothing there says mythic. It says famous and heroic. Further, it puts Hercules on par with Alexander the Great, who is very much at different power levels.

I'm not arguing the fighter shouldn't have some access to supernatural abilities, but I am saying that there is very little precedent for it from older editions.

Solid point. I shouldn't have acquiesced so easily. That's what happens when you don't do your research.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Back then they also didn't arm the fighters with nerf bats in line with more cinematic damage. The fighter got 1.5 attacks per round at level 1, the longsword did d12 vs large while an ogre had 19hp and AC actually mattered. A level 1 greatsword specialist in 2e could plausibly bring down two ogres in a round while the ogre had 4hd so about the equivalent of +4 to hit under new rules.

You might claim that fighters were realistic - but they were realistic in the way John Wick is - and got one attack per level per round against non-combatants. And when someone faced off against a fighter they were in the fighter's world.

Meanwhile in 5e the world is a lot more gonzo. A basic orc has 15hp and an ogre has 59. No one is bringing down two ogres in a round, and a level 2 fighter with action surge needs to be fairly lucky to kill two orcs in a round. That orc has +5 to hit, meaning that heavy armour provides less protection against a 5e orc than a 2e ogre.

So yes the world has changed. Your attempts to fossilise the fighter and make them the only realistic thing in a gonzo world leaves them using stone weapons against people in steel armour. It's a different age

If fighters used to be able to kill multiple ogres quickly and now cannot, it seems they've become decidedly  less "gonzo" by your definition.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The paragraph you reference says thusly;

"The fighter is a warrior, an expert in weapons and, if he is clever, tactics and strategy. There are many famous fighter from legend: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John, Tristan, and Sinbad. History is crowded with great generals and warriors: El Cid, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, and Belisarius. Your fighter could be modeled after any of these, or he could be unique. A visit to your local library can uncover many heroic fighters."

Nothing there says mythic. It says famous and heroic. Further, it puts Hercules on par with Alexander the Great, who is very much at different power levels.

Yes. One moved rivers, one conquered nations and was far more impactful. More importantly m noost of those actually called fighters in the text are explicitly supernatural while the "generals and warriors" are mundane inspirations but secondary.

I'm not arguing the fighter shouldn't have some access to supernatural abilities, but I am saying that there is very little precedent for it from older editions.

And I'm saying sure - but the TSR fighter was John Wick or possibly War Machine. The 5e fighter would need to have its damage balloon to be that - and need to get first pick on the loot tables.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If fighters used to be able to kill multiple ogres quickly and now cannot, it seems they've become decidedly  less "gonzo" by your definition.

That's the problem. The fighter is currently a supernumerary. There isn't just one way to fix this. I see two:

• Ignore combat balance. Combat is where the fighter is king - and the fighter gets at least a 50% damage buff so their weapons do more realistic damage and adds their proficiency to AC so it's useful. The fighter is "realistic" - but when fighting a fighter they bring their foes into their world
  • Subclass: The Mundane. At low level they get things like advantage on saves vs magic. At high level they bring everyone else into their world and start enforcing realistic physics on dragons that get too close.
• Let the fighter into the same world as everyone else. Where at tier 2 they do get to kick iron doors off their hinges and possibly leap small buildings in a single bound. And by tier 4 can kick in the gates of hell and arm wrestle the Tarrasque

Frankly I don't care which answer is chosen. But as things stand (and, worse, as you wish to make them) the fighter is a realistic person in a gonzo world, and a fish out of water with none of the advantages.

 

[Marandahir]

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.

People -- especially Gen Zers and Younger Millennials -- seem to forget that we had dial-up AOL in the 90s, and even Elder Millennials grew up on the internet.