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]

Which is why I lumped 3Ps and WotC together in the "needs complaining at" category.

The difference is, 3pps can actually make changes and release material to address problems that some (but not necessarily all or most) players have, without worrying about negatively affecting their consumer base. WotC can't or won't do that, so yelling at them to go against their financial interests is, IMO, a waste of time.

 

[Incenjucar]

The difference is, 3pps can actually make changes and release material to address problems that some (but not necessarily all or most) players have, without worrying about negatively affecting their consumer base. WotC can't or won't do that, so yelling at them to go against their financial interests is, IMO, a waste of time.

Can and Will are different.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Can and Will are different.

"Won't" then, so "can't" doesn't matter.

 

[Pedantic]

Do we need to do this weird discussion about what WotC will or won't publish? I'm a lot more interested in the design and user experience angle, and I'm already well aware that third party publishers exist. If you've got a product that solves the problem to recommend, that's useful and interesting, noting their general existence isn't.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

The problem was they were given equal design with spells which have always had distinct effects, to the point they are named after their creators sometimes. Perhaps if magic was likewise abstract, then you could have gotten that to work.

I'm sort of indifferent to mapping abilities directly to in-character abilities and not. I could go either way. I do think abstract abilities are one way to give martials more interesting abilities though.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

The problem was they were given equal design with spells which have always had distinct effects, to the point they are named after their creators sometimes. Perhaps if magic was likewise abstract, then you could have gotten that to work.

Accidently posted before finished.

I'm sort of indifferent to mapping abilities directly to in-character abilities and not. I could go either way. I do think abstract abilities are one way to give martials more interesting abilities though.

What we have now mostly (although D&D is fuzzy on this sometimes) is

Spells -- actions that map directly to character action = leads to any effect because magic

Martial -- actions that map directly to character action =leads to some very discrete effect within the very imperfect world modeling move, action, attack vs ac, etc. tactical rules

Abstraction and player buttons on martial abilities can help bridge that gap a bit.

 

[tetrasodium]

No, I just didn't understand that you were speaking specifically about an ability of the Monk. I believe that the post that you responded to of mine was speaking more generally about Martial characters and short rests.

No not really. You just joined or got caught up in the persistent effort to veer away to "martial characters" whenever the problems caused by short rests and short rest classes are discussed.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

No not really. You just joined or got caught up in the persistent effort to veer away to "martial characters" whenever the problems caused by short rests and short rest classes are discussed.

This is the general discussion on the UA packet thread, not a monk thread. You just needed to put a few words of context in, and I'd have had no problem following you. There's a lot being discussed here, with a lot of people. And not particularly in order.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Do we need to do this weird discussion about what WotC will or won't publish? I'm a lot more interested in the design and user experience angle, and I'm already well aware that third party publishers exist. If you've got a product that solves the problem to recommend, that's useful and interesting, noting their general existence isn't.

This is in the One D&D forum, so I assume it is concerned with what WotC will or won't publish. It stands to reason.

I preferred the "just long rests" system we had back in the TSR days. If you're using short rests at all, the classes need to adjust to whatever things you want them to recover between encounters, and how often. My 5e preference is Level Up, which requires a safe haven to get the full benefits of a long rest, making short rests more valuable to every class.

 

[CapnZapp]

I do not see short rests making things more playable.

Lucky I didn't claim they did then!

that is the DM, not the adventure, the PHB tells you how long a rest is by default, anything else is the DM

I already know I can change it. What I want is for the PHB to explicitly say 1) there is no default and 2) the long rest interval can and will change between different scenarios.