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]

Mate mate mate mate mate, mate mate mateyson. Maaaaate.

It's not going to happen.

This is as much a new edition as 2E was. No amount of DARVO is going to fix that. You predicted wrong. Your buddy Treatmonk who said "the big changes are over" before this came out - he was wrong. But what you're doing, ironically, is edition-warring. It's first stages, but we can presumably expect you to be yelling at people referring to the new edition as an edition for the entire next decade lol.

Dude dude dude doodie dude duuuuuuuuude.

You're accusing other people of edition-warring while starting up an edition war.

It doesn't matter whether you, me, or anyone here thinks it IS or ISN'T a new edition or not. The very term edition is a big ol' mess in D&D and ALWAYS HAS BEEN. Anything WotC calls it (anything AT ALL) is not going to be 100% accurate. So it doesn't bloody matter what any of US chose to call it.

LET IT GO.

 

[Parmandur]

I still question a few parts of this. For example: does this mean guidance and Barkskin are going to revert to their 2014 versions? They're not in the glossary anymore...

The Spells aren't in the Rules Glossary. Spells are modules that are exceptions to the rules, nor part of the core rules.

 

[Parmandur]

Right. I don't think that we should assume that everything missing is going back to 2014. Some of it is just not important to playtest at the moment. Sure, the obvious stuff is probably reverting (like the Jump rules, for example), but it's not a foregone conclusion that absolutely everything that is not there will look exactly like 2014. I think everyone's being a little too literal about all of this.

Anything from Chapters 7-10 of the 2014 PHB is what I am talking about: those are the core rules of the game, of which everything else is a plug and play module. Currently, the list of what they are considering for changes to that core engine is the 6 pages in the Rules Glossary. Anything from prior Glossaries that they have dropped, isn't happening: changes to crit rules, jumping, etc.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I see no reason they couldn't have kept two Channel Divinities. "Because that's what they decided to do" is not an adequate reason, and is indeed circular.

I didn't say it was an adequate reason for them not to have had two channel divinities. I said that is why I used the phrasing that I was willing to sacrifice one for the other.

If you want to crusade for every paladin to get two options at level 3, knock yourself out. I don't mind having both of them. But if I'm forced to take one over the other, I'm taking the Wrath of Nature, it is cooler and more useful.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I didn't say it was an adequate reason for them not to have had two channel divinities. I said that is why I used the phrasing that I was willing to sacrifice one for the other.

If you want to crusade for every paladin to get two options at level 3, knock yourself out. I don't mind having both of them. But if I'm forced to take one over the other, I'm taking the Wrath of Nature, it is cooler and more useful.

Fair enough, I was just curious about why WotC made that design choice. And certainly no one is  forced to follow WotC's design choices to play 5e.

 

[Remathilis]

The Spells aren't in the Rules Glossary. Spells are modules that are exceptions to the rules, nor part of the core rules.

They WERE in the glossary in the packets they were presented in.

I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised if some things we think are "settled" might not look a bit different in the 24 PHB...

 

[Parmandur]

They WERE in the glossary in the packets they were presented in.

I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised if some things we think are "settled" might not look a bit different in the 24 PHB...

It's been a whole since the Spells were part of the Glossary, but yeah I wouldn't bet on any early on iteration of a Spell making it in since it was in a section they asked players to discard subsequently.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Anything from Chapters 7-10 of the 2014 PHB is what I am talking about: those are the core rules of the game, of which everything else is a plug and play module. Currently, the list of what they are considering for changes to that core engine is the 6 pages in the Rules Glossary. Anything from prior Glossaries that they have dropped, isn't happening: changes to crit rules, jumping, etc.

Sure. But the best we can do is to assume (an act that isn't always accurate) that they'll look like 2014 if they're not in the playtest. We don't know for sure that they will. Even if all they do is rewrite them for clarity, they might wind up as slightly different.

All I'm saying is that for now, if it's not in the glossary, we use 2014 defaults while playtesting. But we don't know for 100% sure that some part of the rules won't change before 2024. Heck, we don't know that they won't change IN THE NEXT PACKET.

 

[Parmandur]

Sure. But the best we can do is to assume (an act that isn't always accurate) that they'll look like 2014 if they're not in the playtest. We don't know for sure that they will. Even if all they do is rewrite them for clarity, they might wind up as slightly different.

All I'm saying is that for now, if it's not in the glossary, we use 2014 defaults while playtesting. But we don't know for 100% sure that some part of the rules won't change before 2024. Heck, we don't know that they won't change IN THE NEXT PACKET.

I expect rewordings (particularly, I expect the Sage Advise Compendium to inform how things are framed and presented this go around), but in terms of actual rules changes...if they aren't considering it now, I doubt they will introduce anything new, and anything they dropped...is dropped.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I would really hope they rework spells. There are spells from 2014 that are functionally useless like Find Traps and many that are situational but never used do to expense of consumables or that are gated behind high levels.
There are spells that were bad in 2014 that are now functionally useless like barkskin. Now that the druid can use metal armour this is a completely redundant spell as written. The proposed revision was interesting and could be useful.
There are also a number of spell that are now not competitive, most of the ranger concentration bonus spells will not now. be competitive against Hunter's Mark, except situationally.